Almost 40 years of changes at DCI, what do you think are the best 3

[perc2100]

And ...

In our haste to blame electronics for everything, we must not that forget that front ensembles had balance problems before amps too. Too loud, too soft, too much, too little, it's not as if accoustic corps were perfectly balanced. They weren't. The difference today is we have convenient demons to blame.

HH

Exactly: not to mention the mallets used in the 80's/early 90's were HORRIBLE (acrylic tops on marimbas?!?!): so the timbre/sound/color of a lot of pits wasn't ideal either.

And I know: cue up people who point out super-star/amazing sounding pits from Cavaliers, SCV, etc. Just like everything else, the best of the best were truly great at how they played, how music was designed and orchestrated, etc. But most "forget" the majority of the pits were not super-star pits designed/taught by super-stars: most pits were around the average range, with lots of balance issues throughout.

[audiodb]

In case you don't understand that sound travels a little weird on the field, allow me to explain:

- take five snare drummers

- place a snare drummer at these positions on the field: one on the front sideline,

one on the front hash, one on the center X, one on the back hash, one on the back

sideline, all on the 50 yard line

- have the drum major conduct them in and ask them to hit on the downbeat while

playing exactly to the DM's hands

- you will hear that there is a MAJOR difference between the hits. This is because

the sound from the further back musicians travels to the stands substantially later

than the sound from the front snare drummers.

- as anyone who's ever marched in a good HS band or drum corps will know, there is

always a 'pulse pocket' on the field where musicians can listen back for time. For

example if the drumline is near between hashes on the 40, usually the brass around

the drumline from about the 30-other-side 45 can listen back. If anyone further out

than that tries to listen, they will be hearing the delayed sound and will thus be

even later if they play/react to what they hear.

- this is why sometimes members can listen back and sometimes they have to watch the

DM (and sometimes, though rarely, they have to pray/guesstimate and hope they're

right).

Now, that might seem complicated, and to be honest it kinda is. When I teach this every year to my marching band I demonstrate it so they can see/hear for themselves the concept. To think of it in a slightly different way, when you have a drill set where the snare line is very spread out (maybe on-splitting-on etc over 20 or so yards with members not in a line), you have to train the players to NOT listen to each other: if it's clean on the field it's dirty in the box and vice-versa.

This is one of the better explanations I've seen of ensemble timing vs. speed of sound.

This acoustic physics concept doesn't even factor in variances for different stadiums: how far away the stands are from the front sideline, how high/wide stands are, if the stadium is in a ravine, if the front sideline faces a concrete wall, if a stadium is indoors, etc. Those variations also DRASTICALLY mess with acoustic physics and add even more challenges to the performer.

I take it you are now referring to balance, not timing.

But here's where the "listening back to the pit" gets REALLY difficult: the melodic lines of a mallet section are FAR harder to ascertain and find pulse to than drum parts. There is a very specific reason why things are the way they are in drum corps/marching band design, and the reason why musicians are trained to often listen back to the drum line for pulse is because their instruments/voices cut through the ensemble like CRAZY: especially modern snare and bass sections. Mallet instruments are designed to typically blend with the ensemble from a timbre/sound color perspective. Asking musicians to exclusively find time from those sounds would be a nightmare: and I'm not even factoring in for what the actual written parts would be, but more what the sound sound is. When you really listen to what the typical front ensemble section is playing at any given moment, good luck trying to get an entire brass/percussion section to perfectly get time from THAT!

True. Listening back to a backfield pit would only be practical to the extent that a pulse could be heard, either from louder pit instruments, or from the keyboards when they are playing something sufficiently rhythmic to get a pulse from, at a volume level that the field musicians can readily hear.

Bear in mind, though, that with the pit and their speakers backfield, the field musicians would hear the pit much better than they do in the front ensemble setup.

Take into account that there is a minority of people who actually have the opinion that front ensemble balance is consistently, drastically off. By 'minority' I mean some people in the stands and some people on DCP. There are plenty of fans who aren't consistently bothered by the balance, and probably most of the judges aren't bothered either. So you're essentially creating a massive headache/extra obstacle for the corps & staff to try to appease some people (who aren't judges).

Well, amplification is causing a massive headache (literally) for some people (the ones sitting closer to the speakers), in order to appease some people (the press box/upper deck folks who wanted to hear the pit better from that vantage point). Nearly every change has tradeoffs like that.

[audiodb]

You imply that different venues have no bearing on why amplified acoustics are not 100% perfectly balanced at all shows and that's laughably naive. I posted earlier a little bit of basics when it comes to acoustic physics (based on my experience of teaching large marching bands in full ensemble) and you can read my thoughts on the matter if you want. Needless to say, changing venues from show to show do in fact greatly impact acoustics when trying to balance a large sound system with 70 other musicians who are constantly in motion in different parts of a 100 yard field playing constantly contrasting dynamics: all without the benefit of a proper sound check.

But we don't have drastic changes in balance between acoustic sections from venue to venue. In drum corps, this problem only manifests itself with A&E. Just another one of the drawbacks of amplification that we must somehow try to cope with.

[actucker]

Here is something to consider that maybe some of the people who are critical of amplification might not have thought of. Did it ever occur to you that at times, the designers might WANT the pit to be the dominant voice? Again, there are 3 large sections in the corps. With modern writing, wouldn't it make sense that each section would have opportunities to be the focus? When the brass is playing the melody, the front ensemble and battery take supporting roles where they might play at lower volumes and it might not be too important to hear each and every note that they play. You know they are in the mix, but they are not supposed to be the focus. Is it possible that the opposite might be true? Perhaps the designers want the brass to take the supportive role from time to time, and as such, are not completely concerned with the audience discerning every single note that the brass is playing. After all, that is something all great musicians have to learn at one point or another. You have to know when it is time to be the focus, and when it is time to be the support.

[actucker]

THe volume button isn't the only thing that controls volume. And I can tell just by watching that the performers are doing a very good job playing dynamically. But with amplification they can only go so far. If the volume knob is maxed out, and you are playing a pianissimo passage... well the performer is ####ED. Or if it is just a problem of the louds being to loud. The performer has NO accurate way of judging the balance in the audience. WIth or without amplification... that is why we have ensemble rehearsals so that the staff can adjust levels.

Basically the pit volume is almost entirely reliant on who is running the soundboard. And barely any corps has figured it out. And as I say over and over, I greatly question the musicianship of the caption heads and other corps staff who just don't understand how to balance and blend. Stop using excuses like the venues change, we've been using amps since 2004. FITFO.

Sorry, not buying it. For one thing, you clearly don't know what you're talking about if you think you can determine how softly a mallet player is playing by watching from the stands. For another thing, I find it hard to believe that you have watched enough performances to say conclusively that all performers are doing a good job of playing dynamically.

As for setting levels, yes, that is something that the staff is responsible for, however, if the balance is correct in a full ensemble forte section of the show, then it would stand to reason that if all players adjust their dynamics in lower volume sections, the balance should remain intact. Now, if the performers are simply relying on the amplifiers in forte sections, rather than playing a full forte, then you are getting a false level when you set the sound board, but again, that's not the sound boars's fault. That's user error. Again, a performer or instruction issue, not an amplification issue.

The fact is, we play outdoors. There are going to be balance issues. Yes, changing venues does in fact drastically change the acoustic setting, and can change the balance drastically. It was the same way before amplification. Perhaps you don't remember it, but it was a fact then and still is. Think about the difference between an orchestra in a concert hall with a sound shell, and without one. That's one factor changing inside a room that was specifically designed for maximum sound precision, and that same orchestra gets a chance before their performance to check the sound in the room and adjust. We're talking about hundreds of factors, down to temperature, weather, number of people in the crowd, what materials are included in the arena, etc. All of these factors plus the fact that none of these venues were designed for what we do. So yes, changing venues is a legitimate obstacle to getting good balance.

If you think balance was better before amplification, then you are disregarding an entire section of the corps. That's fine. In that case, it is clearly all about brass to you, and you couldn't care less about anything else that is happening. That doesn't mean that balance was better then. One section completely covering another is out of balance, and that was happening just as much, if not more 10 years ago than it is now. If you were to remove the amplification tomorrow, it would still be out of balance, just in the opposite direction. Are there adjustments to be made, sure, but there is one immovable fact involved here. Without amplification, true balance is not possible without losing a true forte from the brass.

[TexasPRfan]

wow, a challenge to limit to just three - on BOTH SIDES (So I cheated slyly)

Best:

1. Expanding Corps to 150 members
2. Increased focus on welfare of the kids/financial stability of coprs on tour
3. TIE - The ever-improving Fan Network AND the elimination of Ties for First Place

Worst:

1. Increasing shift from Music to Visual emphasis
2. Increasing ADD & choppiness of music arrangements
3. TIE - Lucas Oil & Indy for 10 years AND addition of Electronics

Harvey

[Mello Dude]

If you think balance was better before amplification, then you are disregarding an entire section of the corps. That's fine. In that case, it is clearly all about brass to you, and you couldn't care less about anything else that is happening. That doesn't mean that balance was better then. One section completely covering another is out of balance, and that was happening just as much, if not more 10 years ago than it is now. If you were to remove the amplification tomorrow, it would still be out of balance, just in the opposite direction. Are there adjustments to be made, sure, but there is one immovable fact involved here. Without amplification, true balance is not possible without losing a true forte from the brass.

Overall, yes balance was BETTER before amplification...period. Quite honestly, I don't think the brass EVER completely covered up the pit like the pit does (for the most part) the rest of the ensemble. I don't see how you are disregarding the pit as they are front center stage and can be clearly heard...with or without amps. If FACT I just listened to 88 BD and the pit was COMPLETELY integrated into that show and was clearly heard..without amps. Like you said outside venues will always have SOME balance issues...that stands to reason. I have a sneaking feeling the reason we don't get a TRUE GOOD dynamic contrast anymore is because the pit is simply blaring all the time as loud and louder.

[Jeff Ream]

You say that like the volume button is the only thing that controls volume. Who is the one in control of how hard the mallet strikes the bar? The amplification doesn't take away the ability to play dynamically.

well the performer was in control before they plugged in, but the pro amppers say you still couldn't hear them. how hard you hit them now means a lot less than who controls the volume button

[Jeff Ream]

Which I will repeat...others DID NOT, break up or fade away due to, drill change style, music selections, electronics, marching bells, uniform changes and so on. You or anyone from that era who is involved now knows this. There were many many other reasons,the choices we spoke about did not contribute at all.

oh I agree many factors to led to it. But I think a few could have been prevented as well. and with this continued push for national touring, i hope we dont lose more

[Jeff Ream]

Gladly

1) when Phantom did it, the pit was not in the back side line, more just behind front sideline. This SUBSTANTIALLY limits their visual package, and with the spread and velocity trends of modern drill design, this wouldn't work. It would 'handcuff' the designer since you'd essentially have to block off large chunks of the field to accommodate for the space where the pit is. When Phantom did that, there was NO WAY they were going to score above 3rd place with that visual design (and frankly, they were a little bit lucky that other corps directly behind them were dirtier or Phantom would not have been in 3rd with that visual design). Phantom made the best out of the design, but it wouldn't work today with the visual design trends.

2) taking that out of the equation (the pit not where Phantom was, but on the back sideline giving the visual designer ample room for drill design), you put the front ensemble on the back sideline. This presents a MYRIAD of MASSIVE problems as far as ensemble cohesion.

In case you don't understand that sound travels a little weird on the field, allow me to explain:

- take five snare drummers

- place a snare drummer at these positions on the field: one on the front sideline,

one on the front hash, one on the center X, one on the back hash, one on the back

sideline, all on the 50 yard line

- have the drum major conduct them in and ask them to hit on the downbeat while

playing exactly to the DM's hands

- you will hear that there is a MAJOR difference between the hits. This is because

the sound from the further back musicians travels to the stands substantially later

than the sound from the front snare drummers.

- as anyone who's ever marched in a good HS band or drum corps will know, there is

always a 'pulse pocket' on the field where musicians can listen back for time. For

example if the drumline is near between hashes on the 40, usually the brass around

the drumline from about the 30-other-side 45 can listen back. If anyone further out

than that tries to listen, they will be hearing the delayed sound and will thus be

even later if they play/react to what they hear.

- this is why sometimes members can listen back and sometimes they have to watch the

DM (and sometimes, though rarely, they have to pray/guesstimate and hope they're

right).

Now, that might seem complicated, and to be honest it kinda is. When I teach this every year to my marching band I demonstrate it so they can see/hear for themselves the concept. To think of it in a slightly different way, when you have a drill set where the snare line is very spread out (maybe on-splitting-on etc over 20 or so yards with members not in a line), you have to train the players to NOT listen to each other: if it's clean on the field it's dirty in the box and vice-versa.

This acoustic physics concept doesn't even factor in variances for different stadiums: how far away the stands are from the front sideline, how high/wide stands are, if the stadium is in a ravine, if the front sideline faces a concrete wall, if a stadium is indoors, etc. Those variations also DRASTICALLY mess with acoustic physics and add even more challenges to the performer.

If you were to attempt to put the front ensemble on the back sideline, you will literally have to completely re-train your musicians:

* for the pit, when/how to play w/DM hands exclusively (they will obviously have to attack EVERY NOTE substantially early from the DM conducting pattern so that their sound reaches the audience at the right time). Keep in mind that about 65/70% of the time they are playing to what's behind them in a normal environment so they will have to absolutely "forget" how to do that as what they'll be hearing from other section will be 100% echo

* for the drumline, you would have to train them to NOT be pulse center, and to listen back to the pit exclusively for time. At the drum corps level, especially at the top levels, this is VERY hard to to: breaking the habits of highly skilled/trained/experienced alpha-type musicians.

* for brass it won't be too hard as they're used to listening a lot of the time anyway (or playing to DM when called for).

But here's where the "listening back to the pit" gets REALLY difficult: the melodic lines of a mallet section are FAR harder to ascertain and find pulse to than drum parts. There is a very specific reason why things are the way they are in drum corps/marching band design, and the reason why musicians are trained to often listen back to the drum line for pulse is because their instruments/voices cut through the ensemble like CRAZY: especially modern snare and bass sections. Mallet instruments are designed to typically blend with the ensemble from a timbre/sound color perspective. Asking musicians to exclusively find time from those sounds would be a nightmare: and I'm not even factoring in for what the actual written parts would be, but more what the sound sound is. When you really listen to what the typical front ensemble section is playing at any given moment, good luck trying to get an entire brass/percussion section to perfectly get time from THAT! And that doesn't take into account how rough/unconfident the pit playing may be due to the fact that they're playing in an environment that is counterintuitive to what they usually do.

So I guess the bottom line is yes, this MIGHT be able to be done in modern drum corps. Phantom did that in the early 90's and were able to eek out a Top 3 finish putting their pit in various pods on the field (in 93 they were maybe 5-10 yards behind the front sideline; in 94 the main pod was again 5-10 yards behind the front sideline inside the State R 35 with a "part-time" aux. percussion pod set up on State Left in between the front & back hash). However, what Phantom did is VERY different from what you're suggesting, and even what Phantom did was (from what I've heard talking to members/staff from that year at least) extremely difficult to teach & clean.

So then the real question becomes:

Is it worth all of the extreme hassle to retrain the entire membership of the corps? Is the effect generated going to be worth the hassle? On top of training the kids in the corps' style of marching/playing, you will have to spend SIGNIFICANT ensemble time re-training every musician to play with this new environment: can you afford to take time away from teaching/cleaning an already demanding production to retrain already accomplished musicians to perform in a radically (and uncomfortable) listening environment?

Typically, the answer is no: it's not really worth it. If what Phantom experimented with in the early 90's for 2 seasons was worth it, more corps would have done it by now. The simple concept of acoustic physics (especially performing in radically different stadiums every night adding to the challenge), couple with the limited time that corps have to rehearse outside in a stadium (remember, it's not like there are hundreds of hours between November and April during camps when corps can rehearse outdoors to properly prepare for this listening nightmare) presents too big of a complication to make it worth their while.

Especially doing it in the name of balance. I won't even get into how different/difficult it would be to try and balance ensemble with an entire section that spends the full production at the back side-line (spoiler: it wold be EXTREMELY difficult to balance, to the point where it is absolutely, laughably illogical).

Take into account that there is a minority of people who actually have the opinion that front ensemble balance is consistently, drastically off. By 'minority' I mean some people in the stands and some people on DCP. There are plenty of fans who aren't consistently bothered by the balance, and probably most of the judges aren't bothered either. So you're essentially creating a massive headache/extra obstacle for the corps & staff to try to appease some people (who aren't judges).

I understand how sound travels. I also understand some visual design. with the pit where Phantom had it, at the farthest point back they were not "just off the sideline". This also opens up fron normal pit area for visual designers to use, and it also creates a staging area for guard equipment changes so you don't have stuff strewn around the entire field. I also understand how sound travels, and yet...

We keep hearing about the experience these guys have in the band world. Um..Tarpon anyone? I see more than a few bands do it in my local circuit. Hell I taught at team that was behind the back hash without amps and we projected quite well without pounding the #### out of the keys.

just more tired excuses. sorry man, you typed a lot just to be shown it can and does work.