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

[Piper]

Maybe we all should have just been otorhinolaryngologists. Yes that IS a word.

[TRacer]

Worst 3:

3. Internet forums where some have to average 1,000 or more posts annually to display their over-education about esoteric topics such as tone frequencies, proper cowbell playing technique, the merits of faking a British accent during show narration, and debates about what material is best used to make CG silks. A lot of it reminds me of the old Miller Lite "Tastes Great! Less Filling!" commercials of the late 70s with Dangerfield et al, except that they had better material.

My apologies as I forgot a zero & then some; this figure should be in excess of 18,000.

[TRacer]

The last few pages of this thread have wandered so far off topic, it reminds me of this excerpt from a famous Monty Python bit called "The Argument Sketch":

The Cast:

M= Man Looking for an Argument (Michael Palin)

A= The Arguer (John Cleese)

M: (knock knock)

A: Come in.

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?

A: I told you once.

M: No you haven't.

A: Yes I have.

M: When?

A: Just now.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't

A: I did!

M: You didn't!

A: I'm telling you I did!

M: You did not!!

A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

M: Oh, just the five minutes.

A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not.

A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.

M: No you did not.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't.

A: Did.

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: It is!

A: It is not.

M: Look, you just contradicted me.

A: I did not.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no.

M: You did just then.

A: Nonsense!

M: Oh, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

-

-

-

[perc2100]

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...

Yes, that's true for 1994 (as I clearly stated): that was a "part-time" aux. percussion pod that was used at times but not the entire product. The "full-time" front ensemble was exactly where I said it was: about 5-10 yards back of the front side-line area (not the back sideline).

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.

Tarpon Springs does indeed have a great percussion section: no doubt about it. They also have no battery: basically they are HIGHLY unique in many aspects of the marching world.

As for your team you taught: I never said it was impossible: I said it was impractical. Marching Bands rehearse (typically) every day in class (on the field), a few extra evening and/or weekend rehearsals, etc. Drum corps don't have that luxury: they move in late spring, tour early summer, etc. By the time they move in and have all-day/every-day rehearsals on the field there is hardly enough time to teach their "normal" (pit in front, brass/percussion on field) shows bare-bones and presentable. Adding to the hassle is very not practical.

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

Nah: I was just shown that not only are you stubborn, myopic, and refusing to understand logic, I was PROVEN CORRECT (technically, acoustic physics was proven correct long before I was on this earth). You named TWO groups in the history of band who have had a pit back field once or twice in their history, yet to this day they are back to "traditional" effects of the pit in the front. On my side of this (pointless) debate, I have the entire history of World Class Finalist drum corps. If you think this is such a viable option, then why has no World Class corps ever put their entire front ensemble on the back sideline in the history of the activity? In a world where "anything that CAN be done will be attempted," this is an idea that never has come to fruition, let alone "proven it can and does work."

But I understand your need to (constantly) argue against amping, electronics, and the like. You don't like it and feel the need to constantly "prove" to all that it's unnecessary: that's a common trait in human beings (for the same reason someone will argue that their switching to an iPhone after several years of using an Android phone: because they 'bought into' one thing that not everyone agrees with and they will feel the need to validate my opinions).

Here, I'll help you feel better: you win DCP. My explanation of acoustic physics, and presentation of the history of percussion in DCI doesn't matter because you once taught some local band that had a pit on the back sidelines. I'm wrong.

Satisfied?

[perc2100]

The last few pages of this thread have wandered so far off topic, it reminds me of this excerpt from a famous Monty Python bit called "The Argument Sketch":

snip

Ha: ALWAYS appreciate a Flying Circus reference.

Of course, your description EASILY describes the internet in general

[tubamarc8891]

Best:

Shows with a story: Makes the shows more enjoyable for non music people.

Drill design: Some of the stuff corps are doing now are quite a specticle

Fan Network: What isn't great about it?

Worst:

Lucas Oil for 10 years: Way to slap the west coast in the face DCI

Cost

Cost

[MikeD]

Overall, yes balance was BETTER before amplification...period.

No, it wasn't better before amplification...period.

[lindap]

My apologies as I forgot a zero & then some; this figure should be in excess of 18,000.

lol...a photo I took while on tour 1978; i might show the full picture and include a story sometime maybe June or thereabouts

best 3-variety, polished performances, warm ups across the street from our hotel (I never saw other corps warm up 40 years ago ever:)

not so best 3-the rapid speed, not enough punctuation in the programs and taking my water bottle when I went to the ticket taker :(

edit: btw i agree with your top 3

Edited March 27, 2011 by lindap

[actucker]

Actually it's you that does not understand amplification and amps. If you are giving a CONSTANT +10db to the instrument(s) you can never truly balance to the ensemble. No matter how soft you play..it will simply add +10 db to that "sound" in the mic. Quite honestly I have no idea WHY they simply do not use ambient noise units and set the unite to only ever be +6db to the background levels. FYI +6db is what is understood to be able to CLEARLY distinguish (human ear) something from the background noise as it were. Even then you are giving MORE db to a section that may or not be relevant to that section of music in the show. Unless the drill writers put the rest of the corps on the front sideline for every part that requires THEM to be the dominant voicing it's just not going to work well...ever. This is why BEFORE amping the drill and horn positions could compensate for the pit taking over the melodic lines and still be heard. I suppose the OTHER option is simply do NOT have the pit play when it can cover up what is relevant at that point.

So we've established, that if your'e adding +10db to the sound, that same 10db will be present at every dynamic. Obviously this establishes a floor. However, as I've already established, your attempting to balance 12 (at most) non directional instruments made of wood or metal and struck with yarn or chord covered mallets with 60+ directional brass instruments which also have the advantage of sustainable sound (all mallet instruments suffer from a decay which starts immediately after the attack which makes tones less competitive sonically over the course of time).

So with those disadvantages well documented, we can fairly establish that if the front ensemble plays piano, and the brass all play at piano, you won't have a balanced ensemble. You will have a lot of trouble hearing the front ensemble at all. Now, if you add those 10db, and with that added boost, now the front ensemble is part of the mix, then you have room to play with dynamics in any direction.

And for the record, just to make sure we're clear here, are you actually suggesting that the front ensemble was covering up the hornline before amplification with your comment about horn positions compensating? If so, then clearly you have no interest in actually having balance. All you want to hear is brass, and this conversation is over.

[audiodb]

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?

Of course. Mallets, tymps and other such instruments have had moments of focus since they were first used on the field, many years before there even was a "pit". That is nothing new.

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?

Yes.

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.

But the premise of amplification has always been that the pit (or a more specific subsection of the pit) needs to be audible at the top of the upper deck even when they are in a supporting role. Yet, you are OK with the brass being inaudible when they are in a supporting role? That is inconsistent.