Jeff Ream Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 That's just the result of a very poorly written book. Shame on those arrangers would cop out using that technique for the whole show. True, doubling/tripling/quadrupling of parts is necessary at some parts (when the hornline/drumline is wailing away or when the part is just so cool), but the whole show should not be a melodic monotony. but...these guys are experts at this stuff...we kept being told so. yet, we keep seeing what you say is poor writing. so...which is it? because i still dont see heights lowered. i see softer mallets, but jack #### in the way of technique really changing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob J Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 the first quote above (attributed to me) was actually my quoting BozzleB. this was followed by my BD soloist example. (credit where credit is due, I was supporting your position) My second quote above was my attempt to be funny/sarcastic? (notice the emoticon) Because it is my personal opinion that if an instrument isn't loud enough to be played outside, it shouldn't be played outside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Tom -- please don't read intent into my posts that aren't there. I've just never been clear on that particular rationale given for pit amps. Has no bearing on any other rationale or even whether or not I support or even care about the rule. Will people use my question for there own nefarious purposes? Maybe -- can't be helped. I just asked an honest question and would appreciate an honest answer/discusiion on its own merits, that's all No Liam. I got it. And my comments were not directed at you personally. I guess I just need to use the other reply tool sometimes so I'm not quoting a specific person. My bad. No harm intended. But, if amplification has little cogent reasoning behind its implementation...then...it becomes the gateway drug to the synthehol, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 No Liam. I got it. And my comments were not directed at you personally. I guess I just need to use the other reply tool sometimes so I'm not quoting a specific person. My bad. No harm intended.But, if amplification has little cogent reasoning behind its implementation...then...it becomes the gateway drug to the synthehol, yes? thats exactly it Tom. They had to have that so they could add the other stuff....which, many of us predicted 6 years ago. while poking holes in the rationales put forth. man some of us are smart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 #### - he's onto us! Actually, Tom, I'd just like to strip away the spurious rationale of recent rule changes so that people can evaluate future proposals on their real merits. But therein lies the issue...the one's doing the evaluating are the ones writing the rationale...yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 thats exactly it Tom. They had to have that so they could add the other stuff....which, many of us predicted 6 years ago. while poking holes in the rationales put forth.man some of us are smart It comes from that Cabal no doubt. Existed long before I was on to all 8 of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 But therein lies the issue...the one's doing the evaluating are the ones writing the rationale...yes? well we never said they were rational Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 But therein lies the issue...the one's doing the evaluating are the ones writing the rationale...yes? No. Most of the rationale we're discussing was written by corps directors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 It comes from that Cabal no doubt. Existed long before I was on to all 8 of you. it existed from the day the proposals were made public, and by a lot more than 8 of us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Amps are NOT used to make the instruments louder, but merely to increase the amount of body of sound that gets lost 30 yards away from the keys. Not sure what you meant here - obviously, amplification makes the sound louder, or it would not be "amplification". I'm guessing you meant to say that the intent is to provide the same end-product volume from the pit as we had prior to 2004, with amps allowing softer strokes and/or softer mallets in the process. I have heard that contention before, and that may have been the intent of some at first....but not anymore. In 2007, there was a definite step change in the volume level and relative balance of amplified pits vs. the rest of the corps, indicative of a distinct change in philosophy in the judge/instructor community. That's just the result of a very poorly written book. Shame on those arrangers would cop out using that technique for the whole show. True, doubling/tripling/quadrupling of parts is necessary at some parts (when the hornline/drumline is wailing away or when the part is just so cool), but the whole show should not be a melodic monotony. I still don't understand this aversion to "doubling" parts. Brass and field percussion players do this all the time, and in fact, it is their ability to play in synch that is a much-admired skill in this activity. Many other ensembles have parts doubled. What's wrong with that? I still remember my attention being drawn to the Bluecoats' pit at an early-season 2008 show (primarily because they were so inappropriately loud, but I digress). I watched as ten people all played keyboard percussion with four mallets each, and thought back to a comment similar to yours, wondering if they were really playing the equivalent of 40 different parts. Edited June 17, 2009 by audiodb 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.