Liam Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I've seen several small bands place the pit in the center of the field, and it seemed to work pretty well for them. But as a few have pointed out, it would probably be more of an obstacle for larger bands, or drum corps, than anything else. Right, because it would be impossible for a drum corps to have to march around a big stationary setup shaped like, say, a giant hockey puck or something .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 How many more amplified marimbas and vibes should we fit into the pit to get the optimal number? The optimal number is always one more than you have .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGuy1288 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I'm wondering why people seem so opposed to this. It worked very well for Star in the early 90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSnareline Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I thought the reason for using pit amps was to allow the musicians to play with proper form instead of pounding the keys like before. This should have also allowed for a smaller pit. I would think that 6 or 7 people in the pit would be adequate these days. OK - add one more for the stupid synthesizers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumelloboe Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Also, remember how long it took for your first band/corps's pit to learn how to play with the horn/drumline?Who would want to go through that every year by moving the pit around? That's my issue. My high school band put the pit between the left 35-45 (I think) in front of the hashes (again, I'm not sure... field markings meant nothing to me at the time) in 2001. I was a pitster in high school, and the transition was rough for one main reason. As a pit, you are taught to listen back- if you watch the DM, you're going to be ahead of the ensemble. By moving us to the field, we now had to listen back, sideways, forward, watch, etc. It's not that it's not possible, it's just a pain in the butt. With guard, my school typically places 200-250 on the field. I am unsure as to whether or not it created issues in the drill, though I vaguely remember some alternates not putting the road barriers (Construction-themed show) around the pit correctly and people running into them from time to time, but that's a prop problem. Could it be done? Sure... but power sources aren't 100% reliable, as our battery died on the very last note of our show my freshman year at UIL State. Wireless mics cut in and out... It could be a cool effect, but to me, it's more trouble than it's worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 The optimal number is always one more than you have .... Oh, so very, very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 That's my issue.My high school band put the pit between the left 35-45 (I think) in front of the hashes (again, I'm not sure... field markings meant nothing to me at the time) in 2001. I was a pitster in high school, and the transition was rough for one main reason. As a pit, you are taught to listen back- if you watch the DM, you're going to be ahead of the ensemble. By moving us to the field, we now had to listen back, sideways, forward, watch, etc. It's not that it's not possible, it's just a pain in the butt. With guard, my school typically places 200-250 on the field. I am unsure as to whether or not it created issues in the drill, though I vaguely remember some alternates not putting the road barriers (Construction-themed show) around the pit correctly and people running into them from time to time, but that's a prop problem. Could it be done? Sure... but power sources aren't 100% reliable, as our battery died on the very last note of our show my freshman year at UIL State. Wireless mics cut in and out... It could be a cool effect, but to me, it's more trouble than it's worth. Well then, let's not have amps at all ... Look, lot's of things are "hard" in drum corps. We're not talking about high school here -- drum corps is (supposedly) the best of the best. Having to "hear" all around you and maybe not get to see the DM all the time is dealt with by every single marching member of drum corps. The speed and complexity of drill these days demands it. I don't believe for a minute that pit members are so far behind the rest of the corps in the ability to make this work. Point is, amps were supposed to be "innovative". They were supposed to allow pits to use regular techinque and not have to project so much. They were also supposed to allow for a reduced pit. I haven't seen any of that. Nothing truly innovative (read: something I haven't seen or heard before at the high school level) has even been attempted. Theoretically, the pit isn't even needed anymore. Many corps have placed moveable or unmoveable props on the field and incorporated the object in the drill. Wireless mics have been used with (general) success. But all we've seen with the pits is louder and some weird sounds. Let's see some true innovation -- instruments spread around the field -- "pit" members who have to be incorporated into the drill temporarily to move from stationary instrument to stationary instrument like soloists often do -- a "pit" that moves from one side of the field to the other for each movement. These are just off the top of my head. Point is that the word "pit" references the "pit orchestra" for musicals that is placed (hidden) in front of the stage to be heard but not seen. Why can't we move beyond that? Why can't the percussion ensemble shed the term and meaning of "pit" and be integrated in some greater way into the productions that drum corps now put on? The talent level of corps members and designers today make this possible beyond any "it's too hard" complaints I've heard here. The rule changes for amps, wireless mics and electronics make it technically feasible and, quite frankly, those rule changes have not impressed me one iota to date as anything having any great effect to be deemed so "necessary". The claim was that "innovation" was needed -- well show me!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawn Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I'm wondering why people seem so opposed to this. It worked very well for Star in the early 90s. star operated on an "everyone always watch" method of timing. it was up to the performers to interpret the drum major, and know how they should play in relation to that. (i.e. "on page 46, i'm 4 steps in front of the back hash, and i need to be slightly ahead of the drum major.") with no listening responsibilities, splitting the pit was feasible. today though, no one (that i'm aware of) does the "always watch" thing, because quite frankly, its freakin hard and the benefits are minimal if they exist at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 As to the comments regarding having the pit on the field: See Phantom '93 and '94 for compelling ways to put the pit on the field. Those are two of my favorite Phantom shows of all time. However, I was also told by a Phantom vet who marched later (i.e. late 1990s) that the innovative pit staging that year cost the corps points with the judges. Maybe somebody with more direct knowledge could elaborate or correct? One other thought: Personally, I'd think putting the pit on the field could help eliminate problems with phasing between the pit and the hornline/battery. Again, maybe somebody who marched one of those years (*cough* SilverTrombone *cough*) could clarify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iplaytimpani Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I thought the reason for using pit amps was to allow the musicians to play with proper form instead of pounding the keys like before. This should have also allowed for a smaller pit. I would think that 6 or 7 people in the pit would be adequate these days. OK - add one more for the stupid synthesizers... Quoting you as it was near the end, but really a general statement: Sigh... All you apparently non-pit people talking about the modern day pit again. But seriously, I don't think a lot of the people that weigh in on this topic understand the modern pit. Speaking at least from the one I was in, we had to be as tight as we were as we played based on the center marimba's movements. Watching was the key to our success, and moving together. You can't do that very well if you're split 20 some yards apart. As far as the number's not decreasing, while the amplification did give that ability if a corps chose, many have chose to write thicker pit books. When you see 5 marimbas and 4 vibes, very VERY rarely are they all playing the same thing in the same octaves. Also, the size of the pit comes up in design meetings, as far as how many the percussion writers need to accomplish what they want to accomplish on the season. Leave the pit's alone. Just make sure there's someone knowledgable on the sound board and someone in the stands helping them balance.... 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.