Drum Corps Research

[soccerguy315]

You'll probably be very hard-pressed to find legitimate, peer-reviewed scholarly research on this topic, unfortunately. That article is probably the best and closest thing you'll find to suiting your needs and it isn't from a peer-reviewed scholarly source.

meh, it's an English composition paper, which judging by the topic they let the OP chose, sounds like a "how to write" course... shouldn't need fancy sources for that.

[CrownStarr]

You'll probably be very hard-pressed to find legitimate, peer-reviewed scholarly research on this topic, unfortunately. That article is probably the best and closest thing you'll find to suiting your needs and it isn't from a peer-reviewed scholarly source.

Very true. However, where do peer-reviewed journal articles come from in the first place? Someone has to go digging through regular, non-scholarly sources, interviewing experts, compiling all the data, and submitting that to some kind of panel for review. Drum corps is just one case of a topic for which someone (presumably) hasn't done that yet, so the OP has to do all the legwork himself!

I wish high school classes would talk about that process; from what I remember, journal articles tended to be treated like magical oracles from which all truth descends, rather than the results of a lot of hard and often fuzzy work (at least when talking about social sciences).

[Abbevillekid26]

it's odd because you would think coming to a drum corps site would be a good place to get facts about drum corps but in reality this could be one of the worst places to look.

joking aside, that article is okay. i doubt your professor would check the source or strongly disagree with it anyway.

[DrillmanSop06]

Very true. However, where do peer-reviewed journal articles come from in the first place? Someone has to go digging through regular, non-scholarly sources, interviewing experts, compiling all the data, and submitting that to some kind of panel for review. Drum corps is just one case of a topic for which someone (presumably) hasn't done that yet, so the OP has to do all the legwork himself!

I wish high school classes would talk about that process; from what I remember, journal articles tended to be treated like magical oracles from which all truth descends, rather than the results of a lot of hard and often fuzzy work (at least when talking about social sciences).

I think it would be a fascinating area of scholarship that could have significant impacts on the drum corps community. Unfortunately, as an English Ed. major I can tell you that the freshman comp. setting isn't the best one for producing research on any given topic. Generally, the undergrad capstone course would be the best setting for an undergraduate to do meaningful research that can contribute both to his or her content area as well as the drum corps community. I'm actually currently doing something very similar in producing some of the first scholarly material on the topic of contemporary military drill and ceremony. I don't feel as though even my training as an undergrad has prepared me to do all that legwork you're describing! And in that field, I am considered to be an expert.

I feel like high school classes never make it to talking about the process and depending on your personal interests, your faculty, and your classes, you may or may not even get that in your undergraduate education! You made some really great points though!

[JimF-LowBari]

Problem I have with the paper is the part disussing the physical differences between Bb and G. Gs are described as more conical in tube shape (think that was in here, know I saw it before) with a bigger bell. That was more true back in the day but (from what I understand) the only difference between G and Bb horns today is the length of lead pipe. Someone from Kanstul could explain better as they might be the only manufacturer still making both.

As for asking for info on DCP, why the Hell not? I've researched info on a couple of different topics and best bet is always look for where the most info resides and start digging.

Edited October 28, 2010 by JimF-LowBari

[Steve Knob]

3 of the main differences are that;

1. G bugles have larger bores than band instruments, which lets through/requires more air to make them truly resonate.

2. With all the instruments in the same key, they all generated the same overtones (also starting at a lower pitch, which makes the overtones easier to hear), so they act as their own amplifier (If we could get someone to build Bb Mellophones, we could get some of that back).

3. Bugles also all have the same bore design (conical), which adds to their combined power. Band instruments use both conical (1/3 straight, 2/3's flaring - Baritone and Tubas) and cylindrical (2/3's straight, 1/3 flaring - Trumpets, Mellophones, and Trombones in MB) bores, which makes them produce different amounts and proportions of their respective overtones. Arranging for outdoors requires a good understanding and management of the behavior of overtones for the writer to truly have much success.

Their are tons of great web sites that explain acoustics, overtones, wave amplification, and how the internal shape (bore) of an instrument is it's most important characteristic in what it sounds like. It's a neat area if you are at all into music and science. If you really need to get into it, get a copy of the Heimholtz "On the Sensations of Tone".

[glory]

No. 1 - Asking so broad a question for such a purpose feels to me academically dishonest. I can't see into the OP's heart and say for sure, but IT FEELS as if he's asks us to do the work (the research) for him, which wouldn't be right.

No. 2 - Forget the science of this. The comment on peer review is relevant because some of the discussion around Bb vs. G sounds scientific. But it's not - or at least, there is no scientific consensus on which to rely. The bore, the overtones, they're all scientific discussions with plenty of truth to them. Yet, the specific correlation to the sound, playability, etc., of Bb and G hasn't been established in a scientific sense.

No 3 - Maybe a better approach to this composition would be to make it about something other than the science, which doesn't really exist. Talk about the debate, its various component issues, relevance to the activity and fans and potential impact on drum corps's future.

No. 4 - If you make No. 3 your approach, then you can come here and do genuine research (different from No. 1). You could use individuals on DCP as research subjects, soliciting their views and maybe expertise on the subject. These interviews would be part of your research. And by taking the science (No. 2) mostly out of your topic, you'll be in control of the research and thus better able to shape the content and organization of your paper. Probably will be more fun too.

HH

[BRASSO]

Faced with the threat of removing G horns from the activity in 1997, Peter Bond of the Metropolitan Opera and former principal trumpet of the New Mexico Symphony Orchestra wrote a comprehensive comparison of G bugles and band brass instruments entitled The G Bugle: History and Identity. The man is an expert and his analysis is truer today than ever. Should have all the information you need.

Peter Bond of the Metropolitan Opera is an acknowledged expert in the field of Drum and Bugle Corps , Marching Band and Symphony Orchestra having participated in all three, and is well qualified to differentiate the differences between the " G" Bugle and the Bb trumpet.

It is worth noting that he believes ( as most legacy fans do ) that the " G " Bugle sounds better out doors than does the " Bb " instrument assuming the comparison is made between an equally talented player playing both instruments.

The " G " has a richer, deeper, more voluminous, sound to it, and sounds better than the " Bb " when played outdoors. The " Bb ", by contrast, sounds better indoors than does the " G", as it's sound is characteristically more brighter, which is more conducive to indoor playing acoustically..... Mr Bond concurs as well.

Edited October 28, 2010 by BRASSO

[Michael Boo]

It's easier to find a G-bugle table lamp. :lol:

[Steve Knob]

No. 1 - Asking so broad a question for such a purpose feels to me academically dishonest. I can't see into the OP's heart and say for sure, but IT FEELS as if he's asks us to do the work (the research) for him, which wouldn't be right.

No. 2 - Forget the science of this. The comment on peer review is relevant because some of the discussion around Bb vs. G sounds scientific. But it's not - or at least, there is no scientific consensus on which to rely. The bore, the overtones, they're all scientific discussions with plenty of truth to them. Yet, the specific correlation to the sound, playability, etc., of Bb and G hasn't been established in a scientific sense.

No 3 - Maybe a better approach to this composition would be to make it about something other than the science, which doesn't really exist. Talk about the debate, its various component issues, relevance to the activity and fans and potential impact on drum corps's future.

No. 4 - If you make No. 3 your approach, then you can come here and do genuine research (different from No. 1). You could use individuals on DCP as research subjects, soliciting their views and maybe expertise on the subject. These interviews would be part of your research. And by taking the science (No. 2) mostly out of your topic, you'll be in control of the research and thus better able to shape the content and organization of your paper. Probably will be more fun too.

HH

Take the science out? All of the facts of acoustics "which doesn't really exist"? Hermann Helmholt's seminal book "On the Sensations of Tone" doesn't show a "specific correlation to the sound, playability, etc., ... in a scientific sense". Really?

Research means gathering facts. Personal opinions may be included, but scholarly research deals in facts and trying to find absolutes. To be a true representation of the topic, both could be included, but facts have to make up the bulk of a paper. Opinion is just that - each individuals ideas and opinions, which can vary widely, and can be based on nothing more than what some else told them (the person having no actual experience themselves), or if they didn't get their bowl of ice cream the night before. These days you can find someone with an opinion that will "prove" anything, including the existence of Elvis' three-headed alien baby. If you want to write a paper based on yours and others opinions, thats called an editorial, not a research paper.

Having played G's (PR's and 2v, Olds, Kings, and DEG's), and taught and judged both G's and Bb/F's, I have to say that in my humble opinion (not scientific fact), I like the Bb/F's better. I heard both at the same contest in Normal IL when Cadets were on Bb/F and everyone else was still on G's. The difference was not earth-shattering, but noticeable to my ears, and I really liked the Bb/F sound, as did many of the people around me. At the time, I didn't know for sure that Cadets had made the switch, but I could tell something was different, and better to my ears. I do miss the G "burn" sometimes, but not the general harshness, poor quality of the instruments, and intonation issues. The better sound quality, wider selection, and construction quality of Bb/F instruments outweighs to me the few positive things I miss about G bugles, IMHO.

/rant on

Drum corps to me has always been about what and how we do what we do, not what equipment we do it on. They haven't been "bugles" since they put the first D piston on them, so we have to stop using the "we play bugles" thing to justify what we do. The level of content and commitment to excellence by our staff's and marching members that make us what we are.

As you can see in my signature, I played in the 70's, taught in the 80's, judged in the 90's and 00's, and I am teaching again, and I love ALL of it, and I will still love it when it changes again (which it will!) because I love who we are, not what tools we may use.

/rant off

Edited October 28, 2010 by Steve Knob