Jump to content

Electronics Debate 2011


Recommended Posts

Could it be, then, that maybe... just maybe, electronic sounds used as musical content or effect is not really working out the way that those who wanted to use it thought it would?

<snip>

It could be that, except that it's not "those who wanted to use it" originally who are still complaining about electronics in the show. The folks who are still complaining, are the folks who never wanted it to begin with.

I'm not sure that a persistence of opposition to an idea, should impact the value of the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy doesnt need to talk about amps and electronics for that :tongue:

Please, call me MIKEY!!!

As for red or green, I do not care about that in any way.

As for electronics, like I said they are here to stay and nothing is going to change that because most of the kids who march today want them. Stop blaming Hoppy for them, the other corps directors want them, and the kide want them, so get ready to pay money to hear thrashing guitar solos.

As someone who has a lot of experience using outside pa's do I think that most corps are using their power amps correctly? No, not even close Jeff is correct about that.

Edited by Howdy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the use of the phrase "I'm down with..." in today's lexicon.

I also can't rationalize it figuratively, because we all know of "Debbie Downer" or "I'm having a down day". Seems counter-intuitive to use "down" for something you're actually "up" and excited about.

Language is not rational, so trying to rationalize it will only drive you insane. :w00t: Lots of words have opposite meanings in different contexts.

I can't find any evidence for sure, but I'm thinking "down with that" as a positive phrase comes from "getting something down" (ie, getting good at something), or in music, a breakdown, hoe-down, and getting down are pretty positive things. Or maybe it's just "down" as in "cool" as in you're going along with it, you're not going to get up out of your seat to stop it.

Certainly this meaning of the phrase has been around for decades. I remember understanding it when I first heard Baby Got Back (WARNING: offensive (but silly) lyrics behind that link) in 1992. Tim McGraw wrote a song complaining about it in 2004.

Wait, what's the topic? :lookaround:

Edited by skywhopper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be that, except that it's not "those who wanted to use it" originally who are still complaining about electronics in the show. The folks who are still complaining, are the folks who never wanted it to begin with.

I'm not sure that a persistence of opposition to an idea, should impact the value of the idea.

Opposition for opposition's sake is exactly what I was trying to say is NOT the motivation, at least in my case. (and I suspect I am not alone) Why is that so hard to understand? I can't speak for others. I can speak for myself, and I tried to do so when describing my context, so let me reiterate to be perfectly clear:

B-flats? Wasn't sure it was a good idea, kinda sad to lose the G edge, but it hasn't impacted my enjoyment, and perception of musicality and performance is still fully present.

Pit amps? At first I was sad we'd lose the purely acoustic sound, but I have found most every pit sounding well blended. I can get past the slight sound change due to the electronic element. Like B-flats, amps in the pit haven't impacted my enjoyment or perception of musicality and performance. (in fact it has made pit musicality and performance much more clear in most cases.)

Synths? Does not fit the criteria at this point. (positively or at least neutrally impacts musical and performance quality perception such that enjoyment is not impacted negatively)

If people still feel that there is wide-spread opposition to synths just for the sake of opposition, then so be it. But it doesn't make it true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said opposition for opposition sake, I said persistence of opposition.

Let me try to explain it another way...

I don't think that just because the same people who didn't agree with electronics (because they don't think they add to the show) persist in thinking that they don't add to the show, is a reason to re-examine (Yet Again!) electronics in drum corps.

I'm not speaking of opposition for opposition's sake, folks have their reasons for opposing....but those reasons haven' changed since the discussion first started. There's no new information here. Which is why, IMHO, folks get annoyed about starting this conversation again.

Opposition for opposition's sake is exactly what I was trying to say is NOT the motivation, at least in my case. (and I suspect I am not alone) Why is that so hard to understand? I can't speak for others. I can speak for myself, and I tried to do so when describing my context, so let me reiterate to be perfectly clear:

B-flats? Wasn't sure it was a good idea, kinda sad to lose the G edge, but it hasn't impacted my enjoyment, and perception of musicality and performance is still fully present.

Pit amps? At first I was sad we'd lose the purely acoustic sound, but I have found most every pit sounding well blended. I can get past the slight sound change due to the electronic element. Like B-flats, amps in the pit haven't impacted my enjoyment or perception of musicality and performance. (in fact it has made pit musicality and performance much more clear in most cases.)

Synths? Does not fit the criteria at this point. (positively or at least neutrally impacts musical and performance quality perception such that enjoyment is not impacted negatively)

If people still feel that there is wide-spread opposition to synths just for the sake of opposition, then so be it. But it doesn't make it true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said opposition for opposition sake, I said persistence of opposition.

Let me try to explain it another way...

I don't think that just because the same people who didn't agree with electronics (because they don't think they add to the show) persist in thinking that they don't add to the show, is a reason to re-examine (Yet Again!) electronics in drum corps.

I'm not speaking of opposition for opposition's sake, folks have their reasons for opposing....but those reasons haven' changed since the discussion first started. There's no new information here. Which is why, IMHO, folks get annoyed about starting this conversation again.

Ok, I get that point. Thanks for clarifying.

But how is persistence of opposition different from persistence of acceptance? (or persistence to force the change in the first place?)

I again reiterate my challenge to drum corps at every level: I dare you to come out with a completely synth-less show and prove that drum corps without electronic enhancements (not including pit amps) can still compete. Because that's how this bill of goods was sold to drum corps consumers. (i.e. "corps don't HAVE to use synths") So.... prove it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...