Rule Proposal 2008-10

[DrumCorpsFan27]

If a corps wants to get better, there's ways of going about it besides trying to change the rules

Tell that to George Hopkins!

[audiodb]

Most fans, it seems, do not even really understand what extent amps are or aren't being used today.

OK, then - I guess you'll educate us, then?

They automatically associate amps with the Cadets narration or the Crossmen blasting their keyboards out of balance. If if weren't for amps, you probably couldn't hear most pits at all.

I had no trouble hearing unamplified pits.

You could have said goodbye to the absolutely beautiful pit introduction to Phantom's 07 show. A rosewood marimba just does not have the same acoustic projection that a brass trumpet or snare drum does. This is why amps were introduced, and I think they have solved this problem.

This series of statements just overflows with ignorance. I don't know where to start.

First, the pit intro to '07 PR's show was one of the poorest examples you could point to, as it would have worked just fine with or without amps. There was virtually no sound from the field musicians to compete with at the start of the show.

Second, of course a rosewood marimba doesn't have the same acoustic projection as a trumpet. Neither does a metal xylophone. Nor does a Yamaha PA speaker.

Third, we are repeatedly told that amps were not introduced to make pits louder - they were intended to help pit players achieve the same balance without

having to use the hardest mallets and pound the keys with unorthodox technique. At least, that's what we're told. Never mind what mallets they're actually using today. Never mind what techniques we still see employed today. And never mind how much louder pits got in '07. But I digress....

Fourth, if you think amps have "solved this problem", you haven't seen very many shows. Amps are a bigger problem themselves than anything they were ever intended to "solve".

Fifth, if you think there ever was a "problem" in the fact that the marimba doesn't have the same dynamic range as an entire DCI hornline/drumline, well, then, I'm afraid I can't help you.

It seems like to me that the Blue Stars are jealous that they cannot afford (or most likely have not attempted to buy) the sound equipment that other corps have, so they have made their three proposals against sound systems. Well, I hate to say it, but too bad so sad.

Apparently, it is you who doesn't understand what is happening here. The Blue Stars are not proposing anything; the proposals are by Tim Kviz, and were given the sponsoring signature in order to present them for discussion and consideration. We don't even know that the Blue Stars will vote in favor of any of them.

The rules state that corps are allowed to have sound systems now, and other corps have simply adjusted, and are within the scope of this rule. Either the Blue Stars need to adjust their budget to allow sound, or raise tour fees to accommodate the purchase of sound, just like the other corps have done. They should either get with the program, or continue to fall behind. Also, they should look at the Behringer section of Musician's Friend. It's cheap and crappy, but if they want sound, they should consider it as an option.

Have you ever seen the Blue Stars perform? They use amps (and rather well, comparatively speaking). Apparently, they have "gotten with the program". By the way, what "program" are you referring to? Because last I heard, amps were an "option" within DCI, not a "program".

Whining because you don't have what others have is simply not the answer. Otherwise, Pacific Crest should make a motion to ban Bb horns because they use G horns. (I think they use G horns right?)

You even got that wrong. Pacific Crest has been playing Bb/F for years.

In the future, before you cast aspersions on an entire corps and most DCP posters, you should first take the time to get your own facts straight.

[MikeM]

audiob:

:worthy:

[k1001001]

Man, I'm not even going to waste my time on here anymore. You guys are so quick to flame against someone else that you can't even consider the possibility of a differing opinion.

Also, read all my posts before you start rebutting against an earlier one. http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/inde...t&p=2120946

My opinion is that sound done by the right people will produce quality results. This goes hand in hand with the 'member running sound board' proposal. Audio engineering is a highly specialized field, and some corps hire professionals who specialize in audio engineering in order to produce the results they want. Other corps, however, rely on their pit techs, alternates, or simply common sense knowledge to run their sound boards, and thus you are left with poor quality results. The amps aren't making the pit louder or crappier sounding - the people running the boards are. Used correctly, amps and sound systems can bring you better sounding pits than you've ever heard before. Used incorrectly, pits can sound like overblasted crap. That's how I feel about it.

Edited January 14, 2008 by k1001001

[Lancerlady]

Well then, that is also another ridiculous reason to NOT have amps, the corps having to BUDGET to HIRE a "professional sound engineer".

They will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, have problems with amplification in drum corps. There are just too many outside interferences that can occur that can ruin a perfectly good show just a few minutes for some sound effect that they should've been able to come up with a new way to produce in the realm of acoustic drum corps.

If you go back and listen to say 1984 Phantom Regiments pit or 83, I bet you can hear them just fine playing 1812 Overture. Or is that too far back for some on here to even want to go and listen? That is a classic example of not needing amps in the pit.

My husband is a professional sound guy and I have knowledge in sound as well. I am a prime example of someone who was taken in and trained in engineering in a class and also hands on while running light shows for bands. So you can be taught this art properly. A student in engineering eligible to march would be a prime candidate. When you give the instructor the art of engineering, it is taking the peformance out of the marchers hands to a point. That is why I say if they insist on doing this, let a member do the sound board.

However these things just DON'T belong in drum and bugle corps. It's really sad that we've even come to have such debates about it. Common sense should tell people the horrible things that go wrong with amplification in outdoor venues. When there is a drum corps show when something unfortunate happens to a member due to amplification, will the safety issue of it be paid attention to then?

But again, the bottom line is how much money can be made off of amplification in drum corps.

[Lancerlady]

The only one I know at all is Hoppy, as the band I arrange for and teach competes in USSBA. So even there it is primarily on a professional level. I trust the DCI BOD to do what they think best based on their past practices as a group.

Oh, now I see....I see very clearly now.

[shawn craig]

In Denver, the first year of amps, I sat high up in the upper deck for quarter finals. The two pits that sounded the best up there were Phantom and Bluecoats who were both unamped that year. The amped pits really couldn't be heard much up there.

In the last couple years I've sat in different areas of various stadiums. No matter where I sit I get an overall good level of sound from the battery and brass. Smewhat louder in the middle and softer in the endzones, but still a good sound.

This has not been the case with amped front ensembles. Once I sat right in front of them and it almost ruined the show. The front ensembles were about all I heard. When sitting in the endzones I don't hear much of the pit at all. (not that I mind missing the amped vocals )

The amped sound is much more inconsistant based on where you sit then the accoustic brass and battery sections.

I will admitt that overall amp use has improved each year (exept for amped vocals). But all in all I'm not convinced the pro's out weigh the con's and that amps have truely improved drum corps.

Edited January 15, 2008 by shawn craig

[audiodb]

In Denver, the first year of amps, I sat high up in the upper deck for quarter finals. The two pits that sounded the best up there were Phantom and Bluecoats who were both unamped that year. The amped pits really couldn't be heard much up there.

In the last couple years I've sat in different areas of various stadiums. No matter where I sit I get an overall good level of sound from the battery and brass. Smewhat louder in the middle and softer in the endzones, but still a good sound.

This has not been the case with amped front ensembles. Once I sat right in front of them and it almost ruined the show. The front ensembles were about all I heard. When sitting in the endzones I don't hear much of the pit at all. (not that I mind missing the amped vocals )

The amped sound is much more inconsistant based on where you sit then the accoustic brass and battery sections.

Excellent observation.

Yet another reason in favor of a pure acoustic aproach to drum corps. We've tried to point this out to people before, but if the judges approve of it, in it goes. And the judges don't have to sit where you do - they always get 50-yardline seats.

In the insular world of judges and the staffs that aim to please them, this little detail about how amps affects the other 95% of fans who don't have center seats is often forgotten.

[k1001001]

Which corps would you guys say are the worst offenders of overblasting their pits? Which would be the best about keeping a reasonable volume? I'd like to watch the Finals DVD and see if I can tell a difference.

[IntheMood]

First I am no longer anti-amp or anit-sampling. I am Pro Acoustic.

I would like to look at amps in a different way. That way would be Lean.

Lean is a program that Toyota created. Some of the hallmarks of Lean is to identify waste in a company. And to become more efficient.

I would love if a Corps would allow me to do a full Kaizen(Change for the better) on amps. In other words I would have to do a MIFA, and time the loading, and unloading of amps. The moving of amps to the pit area. The setting up of the amps and soundboard. The tearing down of amps and soundboard. Moving the amps back to the truck. And the amount of space amps take up in the truck. And I am sure I am missing a step or two in the process. I am not saying the process for moving amps to and from the field is efficient or ineffecient because I do not have the data to back up one way or the other. But this question needs to be asked. Is amps an added value to the Corps? Again, without doing a full Kaizen to prove one way or another for sure. I would go out on a limb and answer the question no. And here is why I answered no.

If this is true: Amps are optional and the use or non-use of amps in no way shape or form effects placment of a Corps. Then amps are waste, because they are just that, optional. Why would one waste all that money and waste all those man hours moving something that is optional? When those resources could better be allocated within the Corps. Or better yet, put the money in the bank.