WHY?

[Michael Boo]

I did a poll on this a year or two ago...

It ended up being about 40% don't like it, 50% tolerate it, and 10% like it...was so overwhelmingly against narration and synths that it wasn't funny. Of course, it was poopoo'd by the naysayers, saying it can't be accurate, as dcp isn't everyone that listens to drum corps, etc...

I'd consider adding another category; people who just don't let it get their skivvies tied in a knot.

By that, I think it's possible to not care for it as an entity, but to be so overwhelmed by the entire drum corps experience that one's brain doesn't allow it to overshadow the enjoyment that comes from watching drum corps.

Question:

What do you think of amps and electronics?

Poll selections:

It ruins drum corps for me.

It neither ruins or enhances drum corps for me.

Gimme amps, baby. Papa's got to get his synth on.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Michael Boo

[skewerz]

1.They are also used NOT to double brass parts, to create a lyrical lines that are not being played by the brass. I've heard great piano solos in drum corps shows. Also, they don't double ALL brass parts, mostly bottom and for large "hit" or chord sections. They do not double the brass parts for all Aspects of the show. The synth actually doubles pit parts more than they double lower brass parts.

2.I honestly don't think that this example is really enough for people to get upset about then. I personally don't care if a corps uses an "apple crunch" as a sound effect or some contraption that makes a different sound that's supposed to resemble an "apple crunch" acoustically. To me it doesn't matter because I don't love drum corps for those kind of "sound effects" it produces. If acoustic "sound effects" are that important to you, then fine. For me they aren't.

3.Drum corps was initially created to keep troops in step as they traveled from one point to another and to keep the moral of troops up. All these things happened outdoors.

And No, that did not make drum corps unique. Drum Corps is unique because it's marching music. There wasn't another organization like it. And when drum corps was first starting up there were hundreds of different performing art groups that were acoustic. The fact that drum corps was also acoustic did not make it unique. It was unique because it it had colorguard, drums and brass, perfroming a competitive show on a football field. THAT is what made drum corps unique. And drum corps is STILL unique for doing those things today.

4. I agree with this. Obviously, its very clear that under constraints creativity occurs, yes. But if you keep making a bridge out of gum and Popsicle sticks you'll never know what it would be like to create a bridge with spaghetti and meatballs. OR what you'd be able to do if you were able to build a bridge with Spaghetti, Meatballs, gum and Popsicle sticks.

Plus, Corps still have a choice to NOT use samples for a desired effect, if they feel the effect would be better if it did not need a sample. IF designers don't feel obligated to keep their "sound effects" acoustic then that must not be a priority for them. It must be that to designers creating an acoustic "sound effects" is not as important as the effect the the "sound effect" alone produces. "It's not how we're creating the sound effect that matters, its that we're doing it." BUT, at the same time I hear corps also make acoustic sound effects, and designers know that they still have those options available. Having synths does not mean no more acoustic sound effects, it just means that designers now have option to create non-acoustic sound effects.

In my opinion the sound effects used by corps have all varied in effect. I really liked how Crown last year used those rewinding effects in the end of the their show last year. I thought it was a pretty good use of electronics to create an effect.

I would say that this all depends on the circumstances. We can all think of examples were easier isn't better in drum corps and when easier is better in drum corps.

The concept of things being "busy" has more to do with the design aspects of the show than it has to do with the tools available to the designers. It obviously possible to have "50 media" to work with and have things in balance, polished and not "busy". It's all in HOW things are used.

5. What would be an example of an "easy button"?

I think that performances are getting more difficult than easier. A niche performance based entertainment (and educational) medium would benefit from making things easier in creating a certain effect. That effect however is subjective to the audience member. For me, I benefited from being able to hear the apple crunch clearly and know that it was an apple crunch. It was a poignant part of that show and all the ideas that came to mind from hearing the sound of someone biting into the forbidden fruit enhanced the show for me because the sound was able to evoke ideas within me that helped me enjoy that part of the show even more.

We want show ideas to be easily understood to the audience (if the designers decide that their show should even have an idea). And sound effects allow us that comfort. Whether or not everyone appreciates that is completely different story. You obviously don't appreciate those comforts and that's fine. Everyone has their preferences.

6. Agreed, drum corps is sufficiently hard. Some corps do things harder than others but that's always going to happen.

We don't have rules on tempos that must be reached, 16th note runs that must be achieved and volumes needed to be produced. Going the distances on those aspects make the performance harder so why don't we put requirements on those aspects? If we are so concerned that corps create acoustic sound effects so that it makes it "harder" then shouldn't we create rules on the difficulty of the music? Put a tempo quota on shows (must be over 208 bpm? And have a judge with decibel monitor? No, we don't need rules in drum corps to make things harder because drum corps is already sufficiently difficult on its own. The use of synths may make it easier to produce a sound effect but keeping it in does not make or break drum corps, it does not make drum corps less creative or easier. It just makes it different.

Again, it has everything to do with the designers. Designers decide whats important for them in a show, and they decide how much to cater to a progressive audience or a traditional audience while still winning first place.

1. if they are used to double ANY, they are being used wrong. I don't wanna hear synth...I wanna hear little Cindy play her trumpet...or baritone...or tuba...or xylophone.

2. ehhh...to me, SCV doing the helicopter sound was infinitely more impressive than pressing a button. Phantom making the marching troops sound in '08 was much better than a synth could have done it...

3. Sure, when drum corps were started up, there were lots of other performance groups that were acoustic..they didn't have a whole lot of choice. How many of those other performance groups were designed for outdoor performance on a football field? marching band, and drum corps.

Drum corps sounded different than marching band. Marching bands had woodwinds, and most probably used Bb horn instrumentation. (that's just a guess...I dunno what a 50's marching band's horn key was) Marching band was for the kid in school that either wanted to play an instrument, or was forced to play an instrument my their parents. For many, and still to this day, marching band is just a social club. There are far more social club marching bands in the U.S. than there are BOA marching bands.

Drum corps was for the kid off the street that didn't know anything about music, and the marching band person that wanted more/better. That started changing in the 70's. It started to become more about the marching band person that wanted to be in the elite...wanted to be in a drum corps. Drum corps did things marching bands couldn't dream of. The incredible sounds of a G line wailing at stadium filled fans was awesome. The sounds of a woodwind filled marching band? not so much...

Drum corps was the pied piper...marching band was the mice. And then marching band started to get more organized...boa, ussba, etc...and they said bands could use electric. (i'm heaping all the stuff..amps, mic's, synths, into electric) Marching bands all over the country are using electric. They didn't have the pure brass sound that was loud enough, or the time to come up with creative ways to make certain noises, or they flat out used them to cover up weak sections. Now, drum corps are doing the same thing. Marching band is the pied piper...drum corps is the mice. A lot of people...a LOT...that like drum corps don't like marching band. I wouldn't pay a dollar to go see Tarpon Springs if they were playing in my neighbors yard. Drum corps used to the leader...now it's not..because they have sold out their uniqueness...acoustic brass and drums.

4. If I want a bridge made out of spaghetti and meatballs, I have that option..I can go watch a BOA show.

5. examples of easy button = synthesizers doubling brass parts. use of bass and electric guitar, instead of transcribing the music to a brass part. Synth patch instead of a creative acoustic solution. mic'ing brass soloists...

as far as performances getting harder...sure, the marching is...and that in turn makes playing harder, but brass books decades ago were harder to play than today's brass books. Drum corps are sacrificing musicality for physicality. I wouldn't pay to watch BD's drill with no music, but I would pay money to hear Crown's music with no drill.

6. the higher the tempo, the less notes you can push through a horn. there's a lot more "jazz run 10 yards and play a whole note" than there used to be. There's a lot more "bazillion notes in 2 measures followed by a chord stinger" than their used to be. Music is being designed to follow drill design, when it used to be the drill was designed to follow the music.

the designing is the issue that most have that are of the older school. designers are designing shows to please the judges, not the audience. That much is apparent from BD's last 2 offerings. George Hopkins has flat out said he could care less what the audience wants.

you said "Designers decide whats important for them in a show, and they decide how much to cater to a progressive audience or a traditional audience while still winning first place." the way shows are judged now, you CAN'T win first place and cater to the audience, except for one exception...Phantom '08, and to be honest, BD was a lot cleaner in '08. Designers are designing there shows aiming at the judges first, and then toss the crowd a bone if we can.

the audience is who pays the bills, and there are still a lot more old schoolers out there then there are the new progressives. designers should be aiming at the check writer, and not the judges...continuing a judging formula that consistently goes against the wishes of the cash cow is not a way to keep the activity alive.

Edited January 5, 2011 by skewerz

[glory]

...if you keep making a bridge out of gum and Popsicle sticks you'll never know what it would be like to create a bridge with spaghetti and meatballs. OR what you'd be able to do if you were able to build a bridge with Spaghetti, Meatballs, gum and Popsicle sticks...

I hate it when drum corps makes me hungry! No more of these modern food combinations. Drum corps was meant to be on the march outdoors. These epicurean designers only want new recipes to play with. Too much chopping and basting. New rule! If you can't cut it with a drum stick, you can't eat it. Better yet, no cooking except chops. And PB&J.

HH

[TerriTroop]

How are "synths" currently used a design crutch? How exactly are synths used in that way?

What! That's not at ALL what made drum corps unique! The reason why drum corps didn't use electronics back then was because it was unavailable and unpractical! Drum Corps is STILL unique even if it does use electronics.

How has that STOPPED because of synths?

The bolded statement is just silly. Creative thinking has as much to do with boundless possibilities as it does with thinking within limits. Frankly I think with synths it allows designers to get even more creative! Though it might be a creativity that you just don't appreciate.

You are quite emphatic. I'll try to answer your questions:

1. Instead of having to invent a comparable sound (say, helicopters) via, say, bass drum heads (listen to SCV 1991) you can now do it with a sound patch. Yes, it's simpler and easier now. But it's not as innovative. You don't have to think nearly as much to set the soundscape of your show now that push-button technology is in the mix. Is this a bad thing? To me, yes. To you, no. But you asked me how it's a crutch, and that's how it's a crutch. (I'll get to the corollary argument that the synth is actually a creative force/tool in a moment.)

2. In your second rebuttal, you took issue with my expression of what made drum corps unique. I was directly responding to what someone else said about what made drum corps unique - IN THE CONTEXT OF MARCHING BAND ELECTRONICA which had been available and used in band shows but not adopted by drum corps for many years. Please understand the context.

3. Your next question was how has the unique quality of drum corps has stopped since the use of synths. See my paragraph #1. Synths have made us less unique - i.e. less separated from marching band.

4. Boundless possibilities: ahhhhh the old standby argument of many who have come before you - not just on DCP, either. It's all creativity!!! Yes. And if drum corps wasn't competition-based entertainment (or entertainment-based competition) with an educational component in which a generally "level playing field" is desired, we could have mimes with toy cymbals, cheerleading squads and chocolate covered teddy bears all out on the field being "drum corps." All with synthesized background versions of Maleguena and Over the Rainbow (for us old farts).

My completely ridiculous assertion above is really about this: I don't like that a horn line can be "enhanced" by electronically produced power chords - or any other electronic sound - and not have it be openly judged for bad or good. Heck, I wonder if any of those hornlines might have had some holes in their sound or bad releases during those chords that could have cost them a few tenths on the sheets and created more movement in placements. We'll never know, thanks to this particular part of "boundless possibilities." In other words, it's not all good, and it would be nice if a corps or three would make all musical sounds only via acoustic instruments (amplified pit ok) and have zero synthesized sounds just to see if they can compete with the others. I bet they could, and it would be FANTASTIC. In other words, my beef is with designers who use electronics because everyone else is doing it because they are afraid to fall behind.

Generally I don't get all worked up about posts like this, but I guess you pushed a button. I'm so funny.

p.s. Please know that your last phrase about me not appreciating creativity could have been taken as a little backhanded attempt at calling me a dinosaur. Or, you could have just meant that the current trends are such that I do not like them. I will say this: not liking them in drum corps doesn't mean I don't appreciate them in other contexts. I know I'm fighting an uphill battle about synths because the designers probably don't really care what I think, so it's not like I'm ignorant of that. But I would... appreciate... it if you wouldn't assume anything about what I, well, appreciate.

[skewerz]

I'd consider adding another category; people who just don't let it get their skivvies tied in a knot.

By that, I think it's possible to not care for it as an entity, but to be so overwhelmed by the entire drum corps experience that one's brain doesn't allow it to overshadow the enjoyment that comes from watching drum corps.

Question:

What do you think of amps and electronics?

Poll selections:

It ruins drum corps for me.

It neither ruins or enhances drum corps for me.

Gimme amps, baby. Papa's got to get his synth on.

I think the 3 choices are too few. there are usage considerations involved. I don't mind a mic'd marimba, if it's done right. I do mind a mic'd voice, no matter what. I tolerated the apple bite...I would have much preferred an acoustic solution. Guitars in any form belong somewhere else, as do synthesizers. Bluecoats have used voice the best, imo, but I'd still rather not have it.

[garfield]

You are quite emphatic. I'll try to answer your questions:

1. Instead of having to invent a comparable sound (say, helicopters) via, say, bass drum heads (listen to SCV 1991) you can now do it with a sound patch. Yes, it's simpler and easier now. But it's not as innovative. You don't have to think nearly as much to set the soundscape of your show now that push-button technology is in the mix. Is this a bad thing? To me, yes. To you, no. But you asked me how it's a crutch, and that's how it's a crutch. (I'll get to the corollary argument that the synth is actually a creative force/tool in a moment.)

2. In your second rebuttal, you took issue with my expression of what made drum corps unique. I was directly responding to what someone else said about what made drum corps unique - IN THE CONTEXT OF MARCHING BAND ELECTRONICA which had been available and used in band shows but not adopted by drum corps for many years. Please understand the context.

3. Your next question was how has the unique quality of drum corps has stopped since the use of synths. See my paragraph #1. Synths have made us less unique - i.e. less separated from marching band.

4. Boundless possibilities: ahhhhh the old standby argument of many who have come before you - not just on DCP, either. It's all creativity!!! Yes. And if drum corps wasn't competition-based entertainment (or entertainment-based competition) with an educational component in which a generally "level playing field" is desired, we could have mimes with toy cymbals, cheerleading squads and chocolate covered teddy bears all out on the field being "drum corps." All with synthesized background versions of Maleguena and Over the Rainbow (for us old farts).

My completely ridiculous assertion above is really about this: I don't like that a horn line can be "enhanced" by electronically produced power chords - or any other electronic sound - and not have it be openly judged for bad or good. Heck, I wonder if any of those hornlines might have had some holes in their sound or bad releases during those chords that could have cost them a few tenths on the sheets and created more movement in placements. We'll never know, thanks to this particular part of "boundless possibilities." In other words, it's not all good, and it would be nice if a corps or three would make all musical sounds only via acoustic instruments (amplified pit ok) and have zero synthesized sounds just to see if they can compete with the others. I bet they could, and it would be FANTASTIC. In other words, my beef is with designers who use electronics because everyone else is doing it because they are afraid to fall behind.

Generally I don't get all worked up about posts like this, but I guess you pushed a button. I'm so funny.

p.s. Please know that your last phrase about me not appreciating creativity could have been taken as a little backhanded attempt at calling me a dinosaur. Or, you could have just meant that the current trends are such that I do not like them. I will say this: not liking them in drum corps doesn't mean I don't appreciate them in other contexts. I know I'm fighting an uphill battle about synths because the designers probably don't really care what I think, so it's not like I'm ignorant of that. But I would... appreciate... it if you wouldn't assume anything about what I, well, appreciate.

Oh, now I'm REALLY in love with you!

This is a beautifully crafted post that I bet many "dinos" relate to perfectly (count me as one!).

Bravo.

[Michael Boo]

... I tolerated the apple bite...I would have much preferred an acoustic solution...

[glory]

1. Instead of having to invent a comparable sound (say, helicopters) via, say, bass drum heads (listen to SCV 1991) you can now do it with a sound patch. Yes, it's simpler and easier now. But it's not as innovative...

I'm just going to address this one "innovation" point which seems to be so important to the anti-electronics contigent.

You're right. There is no disputing the innovation and accomplishment of many accoustically rendered effects in the past. They remain as great as ever. It's also as inconsequential as arguing that playing well on fewer (or no) valves was more difficult and thus a greater achievement. It is true. To most of us, however, it's a distinction we don't value.

But that's taste. More emperically, the "innovative" assertion is empty because electrification doesn't preclude innovation at all. You may be right that we'll never near an accoustic helicopter again (unless some X-men parent ...). I don't expect you would say there won't be other innovations that might wow us in other contexts. I, for one, was wowed by the Bluecoats baritone solo through the synth. Maybe not the average DCP cup of tea but a new and interested texture, you have to admit. Ditto for the mirrors.

There will be plenty of innovation. Might be drill or program. Spinning for sure. Maybe even accoustic horns. I'm not worried about innovation. In fact, I'm looking forward to it.

HH

[TerriTroop]

I honestly don't think that this example is really enough for people to get upset about then. I personally don't care if a corps uses an "apple crunch" as a sound effect or some contraption that makes a different sound that's supposed to resemble an "apple crunch" acoustically. To me it doesn't matter because I don't love drum corps for those kind of "sound effects" it produces. If acoustic "sound effects" are that important to you, then fine. For me they aren't.

I think there are issues here of realism vs. inferred artistry. I don't want realistic sounds (the apple crunch) because for me it's anachronistic to the medium I am listening to and watching. I like the inference rather than an in-your-face sound effect. It's like saying with an electronic wind sound that "HERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO GET THAT THERE IS COLD, FAST WIND!!!!!" But I bet the hornline and pit could do something acoustically and infer that sensation more subtly. I like that. To you it doesn't matter, to me it does.

Again, it has everything to do with the designers. Designers decide whats important for them in a show, and they decide how much to cater to a progressive audience or a traditional audience while still winning first place.

Bingo. Designers will cater to the DCI judging sheets - and any loopholes that currently exist - to win first place (or any place they can reasonably get). Since placement can affect future recruitment and public perception, we will continue to see designers play this game. Again, I will challenge the top corps to go "traditional" and see what happens. I think there would be tons of good will and more money from legacy fans with barely any negative impact on the "progressive" fan base.

[garfield]

I'm just going to address this one "innovation" point which seems to be so important to the anti-electronics contigent.

You're right. There is no disputing the innovation and accomplishment of many accoustically rendered effects in the past. They remain as great as ever. It's also as inconsequential as arguing that playing well on fewer (or no) valves was more difficult and thus a greater achievement. It is true. To most of us, however, it's a distinction we don't value.

But that's taste. More emperically, the "innovative" assertion is empty because electrification doesn't preclude innovation at all. You may be right that we'll never near an accoustic helicopter again (unless some X-men parent ...). I don't expect you would say there won't be other innovations that might wow us in other contexts. I, for one, was wowed by the Bluecoats baritone solo through the synth. Maybe not the average DCP cup of tea but a new and interested texture, you have to admit. Ditto for the mirrors.

There will be plenty of innovation. Might be drill or program. Spinning for sure. Maybe even accoustic horns. I'm not worried about innovation. In fact, I'm looking forward to it.

HH

Meh, I appreciate your opinion but I disagree.

DCI wants to make fans out of attendees, right? Well, let an attendee hear helicopters and see bass drum heads, or hear military footfalls and see woodblocks, and it will always evoke a "Wow!" factor.

You may say the average attendee doesn't care how the sound is created, but that's only because he hears those sound effects every time he takes his girlfriend to the movies to watch Terminator 21, or the like. It's not new coming from a synth patch, so it evokes no "Wow!" factor at all.

But the guard under the shields, the corps under the Phantom silk, the magician making the girl disappear, the helicopter flying overhead...those were real, visceral BECAUSE they were analog. Those visual and audible moments, combined with the analog music of such power, creates the moments that turn attendees into fans.

Those things did it for most of us on this thread (the dinos) and the ironic thing is that those analog moments are more rare and impressive in today's electronic world.

Why not holographic ballet dancers then?