charlie1223 Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 (edited) OK...so they're "drum corps instruments" when a corps uses them, yet when they sell those instruments to a marching band, then can I call them "marching band instruments"? lol! It's like the difference between magma and lava? Magma when its in the volcano, lava when its outside the volcano. LOL. I just call them instruments. Edited December 26, 2010 by charlie1223 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 MikeD, do you think every corps gets a deal like BD? I went out, found some comparative price sheets to support MY assertion. Interesting how debates require facts to support one's assertions, try it sometime. This is why I challenge you, that repeat mantras, to do your OWN testing. I did mine, but no matter what I say or did, you would find a flaw or disagree without facts or data to support your position. You also added a straw man into the argument about teaching. It's pretty simple, you get one-five players and test on both using the same players and mouthpieces at different ranges at extreme volume levels. My tests were on Trumpets and Sopranos, they were Bach Strad, Yamaha Marching Trumpet, and Gold plated Getzen 3003 (aweome horn BTW) vs Olds V/R Chrome, 2 valve King and a 3 Valve DEG. Luckily I have access to all kinds of brass of both types, FYI the 2 valve was loudest by quite a significant margin..especially at a distance. All 3 G bugles were louder than their counterparts, both in perceived a(blind test) and Db meter. I did my due diligence, have you and others claiming otherwise? Hell, I would LOVE to compare the projection quality of Mylar vs Kevlar someday as well. Okay, so for you switching to bugles is only about the volume because according to your scientific study bugles are louder. So, if corps were to switch again JUST because of volume, what would be the costs and benefits? I imagine that the reason corps are not using bugles now is because the benefits of staying with multi-key brass outweigh the costs of switching back to bugles (the costs involve more than the actual cost of purchasing an instrument but many other factors aswell). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted December 26, 2010 Author Share Posted December 26, 2010 Okay, so for you switching to bugles is only about the volume because according to your scientific study bugles are louder. So, if corps were to switch again JUST because of volume, what would be the costs and benefits? I imagine that the reason corps are not using bugles now is because the benefits of staying with multi-key brass outweigh the costs of switching back to bugles (the costs involve more than the actual cost of purchasing an instrument but many other factors aswell). I don't think anyone is arguing from just a volume perspective. They're different instruments with a different sound. You could get into the physics of why they sound different, but we'd be wasting our time since there have been countless analyses. Volume characteristics are just one difference (although an important one). The only way to find out whether or not the costs outweigh the benefits is to divide the circuit into two, have the G limitation in effect for one and not the other, and see which is faring better financially after 10 years. Obviously that's not going to happen, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 I don't think anyone is arguing from just a volume perspective. They're different instruments with a different sound. You could get into the physics of why they sound different, but we'd be wasting our time since there have been countless analyses. Volume characteristics are just one difference (although an important one). The only way to find out whether or not the costs outweigh the benefits is to divide the circuit into two, have the G limitation in effect for one and not the other, and see which is faring better financially after 10 years. Obviously that's not going to happen, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless. Precisely. I would also add, that the addition of the amps, synths etc are all costs added on in order to win. Do you really think that if a corps switched back to G bugles (This is DCI I am talking about), rid themselves of the synths and amps that no matter how good they were they would be allowed to have a chance of winning? If someone thinks this I want what they are smoking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 Add six inches of barrel to a pistol sometime to see if length makes a difference. It helps the sound go farther (further?)... I have hunters in the family and work with a gun safety instructor . PS - Anyone know which key has the longer lead pipe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 Precisely. I would also add, that the addition of the amps, synths etc are all costs added on in order to win. Do you really think that if a corps switched back to G bugles (This is DCI I am talking about), rid themselves of the synths and amps that no matter how good they were they would be allowed to have a chance of winning? If someone thinks this I want what they are smoking. Ah c'mon we all know synths, amps, pits, etc are all optional.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skewerz Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 (edited) Precisely. I would also add, that the addition of the amps, synths etc are all costs added on in order to win. Do you really think that if a corps switched back to G bugles (This is DCI I am talking about), rid themselves of the synths and amps that no matter how good they were they would be allowed to have a chance of winning? If someone thinks this I want what they are smoking. I would bet everything I own that if BD 2010 Bb w/electric competed against BD 2010 G w/no electric, that BD Bb would win by 3-5 points easily. Everything being the same..the marching..the demand...the music...all performed at the same level...and that, to me, is wrong. We've already had judges declare they would score G bugles lower than Bb, and it's completely obvious that electronics can only add to your score, and not detract from it. Electric and Bb has made designers lazy. It used to be about teaching, and doing more with less...now it's doing less with more. Edited December 26, 2010 by skewerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 I would bet everything I own that if BD 2010 Bb w/electric competed against BD 2010 G w/no electric, that BD Bb would win by 3-5 points easily. Everything being the same..the marching..the demand...the music...all performed at the same level...and that, to me, is wrong. We've already had judges declare they would score G bugles lower than Bb, and it's completely obvious that electronics can only add to your score, and not detract from it. Electric and Bb has made designers lazy. It used to be about teaching, and doing more with less...now it's doing less with more. Today's shows are FAR more complex, intricate, nuanced, etc. than the shows of years gone by. They are doing MORE with more and some do not like that particular brand of "more" and that's OK. To insinuate that show designers are doing less because they have more tools at their disposal is point blank incorrect. The shows of yesterday, while vastly entertaining, are not nearly as layered and complex as the shows today. Designers are doing more - whether or not it's working is another debate entirely. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted December 26, 2010 Author Share Posted December 26, 2010 Today's shows are FAR more complex, intricate, nuanced, etc. than the shows of years gone by. They are doing MORE with more and some do not like that particular brand of "more" and that's OK. To insinuate that show designers are doing less because they have more tools at their disposal is point blank incorrect. The shows of yesterday, while vastly entertaining, are not nearly as layered and complex as the shows today. Designers are doing more - whether or not it's working is another debate entirely. Brass books of the late '80s and '90s are much more detailed, complex, mature, nuanced, and dare I say it, musical than the brass books of today. Some of those are opinions, others can be verified mathematically. Overall show design, I agree with you, is much more complicated and intricate, but often at the expense of communicative expressiveness to an audience. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 Brass books of the late '80s and '90s are much more detailed, complex, mature, nuanced, and dare I say it, musical than the brass books of today. Some of those are opinions, others can be verified mathematically. Overall show design, I agree with you, is much more complicated and intricate, but often at the expense of communicative expressiveness to an audience. saying that or what drillmansop said is a bit reductionary imo. it depends on specific shows in specific years. i prefer older music books, though. 2 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.