Jeff Ream Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I think the balance between front ensemble to horn line/drum line has been SUBSTANTIALLY better each year, at least from my vantage point. I think there is a large contingent of people who are used to watching/listening to drum corps shows where the pit contribution was minimally heard, where as now staff are doing everything possible to ensure that every note a pit plays is heard by the judges in order to get maximum credit. I went back this weekend and watched several older drum corps videos (from 19 late 80's-late 90's) and I was almost shocked out how little you could properly 'read' exactly what the pit was playing. During softer parts, of course it was easy, and during pit/percussion features it was easy: but during louder, full ensemble moments you can look at the pit and see they playing quite a bit and not really hear everything going on. We can all agree, probably, that is definitely not the case now. Percussion staffers want to make sure the pit contribution is heard at all times, and I honestly think that was some perceive as poorly balanced front ensembles is really just what the sound is. Judges are asked to evaluate groups in comparison to the other groups in performance. If every pit is "loud and clear," per say, then you can't really talk about balance issues since every pit is basically projecting the same. I don't perceive any major balance issues for the most part (there are, obviously, times when there are problems, but I think those are not prevalent) anymore, and certainly not like there were the first few years. I just think that this is the current trend/style and it is what it is. we'll agree to disagree. Plus, I never had issues hearing the pit, even in the top sections before amps. The problem is making sure every note is heard is deafening to a large portion of the stadiums used for 85% of the shows. and like I said before, the night Coats played with it in Indy ( and man was that a fun sideline argument to watch), their balance was the worst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 we'll agree to disagree. Plus, I never had issues hearing the pit, even in the top sections before amps. The problem is making sure every note is heard is deafening to a large portion of the stadiums used for 85% of the shows. and like I said before, the night Coats played with it in Indy ( and man was that a fun sideline argument to watch), their balance was the worst FWIW, from what I understand Coats played with it for more than a night (and to be honest the software they used is really glitchy, and easy to 'overdo.' I played around with the same technology all fall, and while fun in rehearsals I can see how it could be problematic at a performance. I agree that perfecting balance is a CONSTANT challenge on a drum corps tour, as each stadium will yield vastly differing results. To be honest I haven't gone on tour with a drum corps since this technology has been in use, so I don't have a great grasp on exactly how well/poor the majority of groups do. Unfortunately for fans, I suspect the attitude is similar to WGI season, where everything is designed for Nutter Center & UD Arena which means some effects/tuning get lost in smaller gyms and shows are designed to maximize effect in Dayton. Acoustic issues would be amplified (to use a bad pun, I guess) in DCI with wildly different stadium specs from day to day (even from rehearsal sight to show sight). I think the new technology allowance in DCI will get manufacturers to develop better technology (hint: I know of at least one that already has improved tech in the works and may or may not be in testing mode this summer) to make it easier for instructors in the stands to fix balance issues. This will only improve EQ'ing through out the season, and if we're going to live with this technology (which we obviously are), we might as well make as many concessions in order to maximize performance acoustics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I came to DCI in the last 10-15 years and I do not like electronics. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 2. I think you are remembering history with rose colored glass at best by saying, "The pre-2004 pit's contribution could be heard every second of the show" and at worst you're heavily exaggerating in order to try to prove your point. Show's were indeed designed a bit different back before electronics in order to accommodate for acoustics, but to say you could hear the front ensemble for every second of a show is just plain wrong. You're telling me either you're exaggerating/lying to prove a point or you are not aware of what's going on: either way you invalidate your point. You caught me. I forgot about the 16 counts of silent drill that started '86 PR's show. Point taken. (Seriously, though....I see there's a risk in making a general statement like this one. For instance, I didn't say that every single pit from 1982 to 2003 achieved this....and I'm not saying that every single instrument in the pit was audible and readable every second. But any corps with a viable pit and an actual pit arranger could be heard throughout the show (when not tacit). Where do you watch shows from....lower deck? Upper deck? Press box? 3. Again, using qualifiers like "blaring" to try to prove your point paints a pretty biased, disingenuous picture. When the speaker sound is driven to the point that the tweeters saturate, the speaker grilles rattle, and I need to move 50 feet farther away to find a pain-free zone, I think "blaring" is an apt description. (No, not every corps fits that description.) 4. Saying things like "40 mallets points" shows you OBVIOUSLY do not what you're talking about when it comes to orchestration in the front ensemble. By your argument, does that mean that every brass player has AT LEAST three parts because they have three valves?! It's just plain silly (or, at worst, ignorant) on your point to try to argue that point. I'm just repeating the rationale given on this forum previously by self-acclaimed pit people. As usual, it doesn't hold water....thanks for pointing that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrownStarr Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I'm just repeating the rationale given on this forum previously by self-acclaimed pit people. As usual, it doesn't hold water....thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure people have argued (correctly) that amplification allows for more split parts rather than unison writing, but I'm sure that no pit people have ever argued that 10 players * 4 mallets each = 40 pit parts. Even disregarding the "4 mallets = 4 parts" silliness, I very much doubt that any pit has ever actually had 10 completely different keyboard parts going at once. More commonly it'll be the marimbas playing in unison and the vibes playing in unison (each potentially in different octaves), or maybe some parts split two ways in the different sub-sections. Any splitting more fine than that is probably going to be pretty rare, and just for an isolated effect rather than a prolonged musical phrase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) You keep saying they want the "pit" to be heard at all times....but it seems the real message is that they want the marimba section to be heard at all times. The marimba section is a section that gets miked but its not the only section. The timpani, traps, and vibes also get mikes. The acoustic pit is easily heard in recordings because the microphones were at the field level... live, it was much harder to hear. Frankly, amplifying the pit made the front ensemble colors more palatable to my ears when balanced correctly). Before, the high frequencies of each instrument are the only things heard. The timpani outdoors sounds as tinny as a tin can unless you mic its lower frequencies. The "pit" was always audible pre-amplification....but there was no expectation that we'd hear 40 different keyboard parts (10 players x 4 mallets each) This is a misconception. Each mallet is not considered its own "keyboard part" (unless ofcourse you're playing a Bach fugue on marimba). Each keyboard player has a keyboard that requires 4 mallets or two mallets or whatever. You would categorize a piano parts as having 10 different parts (one for each finger) and the same principle holds for mallet percussion. Arrangers would opt for more unison keyboard parts, or greater use of other instruments such as large stationary drums, ride cymbal or other metallic devices that have greater dynamic range. And these kinds of arrangements during loud "hit" moments are still prevalent today in FE arranging... We were told that amplification was not intended to make the pit louder, but merely to enable the marimbist to achieve the same volume level with a more proper concert technique. Not just the marimba... timp, vibes, traps as well... xylophone and bells are rarely miked because those instruments have naturally high frequencies and can speak over the ensemble... even a miked ensemble. The point was not "just" to play with a more widely accepted technique but to play with a widely accepted technique and also be heard... (I am not saying that older pits didn't play with improper technique, but standing hunched over a short marimba can't feel good on the lower back! :P ) Was this just a load of BS, contrived to try and pacify disgruntled fans? No. I'd like to at least believe that the first three years of amplification in DCI was a sincere attempt to strike a balance (followed by three years of dramatic step changes in pit volume)....and that the bait-and-switch regarding pit volume was not premeditated. But when people come forward and declare the need for ten unique 4-mallet parts... No. to be BLARING throughout a ballad at the expense of ever hearing brass subtleties, or worse yet, to have these 40 parts No. all readable when the entire 150-member corps is at peak volume....well, who should I believe? You should believe that its all in the arrangement. Edited February 8, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 FWIW, from what I understand Coats played with it for more than a night (and to be honest the software they used is really glitchy, and easy to 'overdo.' I played around with the same technology all fall, and while fun in rehearsals I can see how it could be problematic at a performance. I agree that perfecting balance is a CONSTANT challenge on a drum corps tour, as each stadium will yield vastly differing results. To be honest I haven't gone on tour with a drum corps since this technology has been in use, so I don't have a great grasp on exactly how well/poor the majority of groups do. Unfortunately for fans, I suspect the attitude is similar to WGI season, where everything is designed for Nutter Center & UD Arena which means some effects/tuning get lost in smaller gyms and shows are designed to maximize effect in Dayton. Acoustic issues would be amplified (to use a bad pun, I guess) in DCI with wildly different stadium specs from day to day (even from rehearsal sight to show sight). I think the new technology allowance in DCI will get manufacturers to develop better technology (hint: I know of at least one that already has improved tech in the works and may or may not be in testing mode this summer) to make it easier for instructors in the stands to fix balance issues. This will only improve EQ'ing through out the season, and if we're going to live with this technology (which we obviously are), we might as well make as many concessions in order to maximize performance acoustics. well, I only heard of one night and only saw one nights worth of arguments with Tony D. man, I wouldn't want to argue with him perfect balance is a challenge, especially when you do 90% of your shows outside with the end game being inside, and accounting for echo. And no amount of black cloth and an open roof will fix that in there because of those giant windows. What I've seen in WGI is people doing sound checks to get the balance in the venues themselves, even out in Dayton. However, I don't think even this new toy will fix it. Why? because of something you pointed out...the need to have every freaking note be audible to the upstairs guys. hey guess what...the battery doesn't write like that. neither does the brass. So why does the pit have to? I'm a percussionist. I love being able to hear the pit. But at finals, when you can't hear brass and battery over them...especially the battery in percussion breaks...it's an issue that no toy will fix. And until the judging community grows a set and nails people for it, it will continue. And since most stadiums have more power alley seating than say Indy, fans will continue to suffer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I'm sure people have argued (correctly) that amplification allows for more split parts rather than unison writing, but I'm sure that no pit people have ever argued that 10 players * 4 mallets each = 40 pit parts. Even disregarding the "4 mallets = 4 parts" silliness, I very much doubt that any pit has ever actually had 10 completely different keyboard parts going at once. More commonly it'll be the marimbas playing in unison and the vibes playing in unison (each potentially in different octaves), or maybe some parts split two ways in the different sub-sections. Any splitting more fine than that is probably going to be pretty rare, and just for an isolated effect rather than a prolonged musical phrase. good catch. Oh tho...we were told pits would get smaller. oops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 And these kinds of arrangements during loud "hit" moments are still prevalent today in FE arranging... and that cymbal sound comes thru the mics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) and that cymbal sound comes thru the mics Not so much. The mics used are under the keyboard and are usually directional. While I don't doubt that some of the cymbal sound may come out of the speakers the actual, acoustic sound of the cymbal is way louder. But heck, if you wanted to mic a cymbal or gong or something I guess you could... HOWEVER, it is true that some world class pits due mic their bass drums from the inside, So that boom makes subs go BOOOOOOM! Edited February 8, 2011 by charlie1223 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.