BST07 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 And how would amping the solo to that same decibel level make any more "musical sense"? They dont have to play as loud making the solo more comfortable for the soloist and giving him the potential to play it more musically. That would be my take on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skajerk Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Or they could just use a thing called "dynamics". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKracing Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Or they could just use a thing called "dynamics". I think his point is that when a soloist has to play as loud as they can to be heard, they can't vary in dynamic as much, and that if they did use dynamics, the lower volumes wouldn't be heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skajerk Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 (edited) And my point is that brass soloists have be doing just fine not being mic'd for 30+ years. As it's already been stated, this along with increase in membership and a&e, is just a backdoor to get woodwinds passed Edited December 12, 2007 by skajerk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKracing Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 (edited) And my point is that soloists have be doing just fine not being mic'd for 30+ years. As it's already been stated, this along with increase in membership and a&e, is just a backdoor to get woodwinds passed Oh, well I agree. I think this rule is lame... I was going to add to my last post "But the design and staging can be properly done to allow for the use of dynamics by a soloist without being covered by the ensemble without the need for amplification" but didn't want to sound negative or anything Edited December 12, 2007 by DKracing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skajerk Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 No worries. It's hard not to be negative after years of putting up with some of Hoppy's proposals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I just voted "yes" as well. What's the harm? The harm is that it takes away the value and achievement of balancing the ensemble of brass and percussion. As others would describe it, it "dumbs down" the activity. There is no need for amplifiying the brass. If your players aren't projecting well enough, you always have the options of staging them differently. If your soloists aren't being heard, you can tone down the rest of the ensemble. If they still can't be heard, you train them to become stronger players (soloists should be strong players, don't you think?). These are the lessons of drum corps - you work, and you improve. But that won't be the case in 2009, if we add the "easy button" for brass amplification. Weak solo players won't have to work at it - just turn the "gain" knob instead. Drill writers won't have to think about balance. Neither will the performers, for that matter. That can all be taken care of at the mixing board. Why practice performing that way - let a staffer from each corps dial up the desired balance and dynamics. As a competitive art, drum corps is about the performance of the performers. Changes like this one, however, nullify that basic tenet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyRyder_FMM Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I just voted "yes" as well. What's the harm? Mike. Perhaps you should consider taking a finance or economics class at a local community college. Or better yet, talk to a couple of the folks knowledgable about the finances of a corps and their budgets. Once you put the basic financial and economic knowledge together with the financial realities of the activity, you just might realize how utterly absurd that comment is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 I just voted "yes" as well. What's the harm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 The harm is that it takes away the value and achievement of balancing the ensemble of brass and percussion. As others would describe it, it "dumbs down" the activity.There is no need for amplifiying the brass. If your players aren't projecting well enough, you always have the options of staging them differently. If your soloists aren't being heard, you can tone down the rest of the ensemble. If they still can't be heard, you train them to become stronger players (soloists should be strong players, don't you think?). These are the lessons of drum corps - you work, and you improve. But that won't be the case in 2009, if we add the "easy button" for brass amplification. Weak solo players won't have to work at it - just turn the "gain" knob instead. Drill writers won't have to think about balance. Neither will the performers, for that matter. That can all be taken care of at the mixing board. Why practice performing that way - let a staffer from each corps dial up the desired balance and dynamics. As a competitive art, drum corps is about the performance of the performers. Changes like this one, however, nullify that basic tenet. So, that's what they mean by added creativity??? 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.