Jeff Ream Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Perhaps that judge actually noticed the brief burst of feedback between the brass chorale and the non-amplified singing in "The Boxer". I thinking that the upper end of the vibes was so loud dogs in Reading heard it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
east coast love Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Many DCI groups have been slammed for poor balance. I have friends working with groups, GE judges constantly calling it out. What you are correct on: There has never been an official training for judges on how credit/discredit balance with amps. I do feel that needs to happen. The issue is trying to have the sound hit the judges with balance, this ultimately takes away from the audiences enjoyment if sitting in the front rows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler C. Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Many DCI groups have been slammed for poor balance. I have friends working with groups, GE judges constantly calling it out. What you are correct on: There has never been an official training for judges on how credit/discredit balance with amps. I do feel that needs to happen. The issue is trying to have the sound hit the judges with balance, this ultimately takes away from the audiences enjoyment if sitting in the front rows. I'm just spitballing here, but what if we moved judges out of the box and into the stands, and maybe give them a small buffer zone of empty seats to minimize noise pollution from the judges to the audience and vice versa? Forgive me for forgetting who, but someone recently posted the opinion that drum corps radically changed ("the beginning of the end," I think he said) when corps out-smarted themselves and started aiming their entire shows at the people in the box. Just brain-storming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Detweiler Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I'm just spitballing here, but what if we moved judges out of the box and into the stands, and maybe give them a small buffer zone of empty seats to minimize noise pollution from the judges to the audience and vice versa? Forgive me for forgetting who, but someone recently posted the opinion that drum corps radically changed ("the beginning of the end," I think he said) when corps out-smarted themselves and started aiming their entire shows at the people in the box. Just brain-storming. Tyler, interesting idea although I am not sure if the placement of the judge would make much difference. Where I think the issue lies is with judge training. We are faced with that very issue in the band world where electronics and amplification are being applied on a much grander scale. I have had this conversation with many in the judging community here in the Southeast and I think it is becoming very clear that the designers, instructors and judges all need to sit down and decide what is going to be rewarded and how much it is going to be rewarded. Show design has progressed at a breakneck speed and the methodology and implementation of scores and competative placement are lagging behind. As is always the case, the judges are the last ones to know/understand the developments within the activity but it is their responsibility to get the numbers right. Be patient folks, it takes just as much time and effort figuring out what to do with all this stuff competatively as it does putting it on the field in the first place! (Maybe more) Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCAwilloutliveDCI Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Training judges to effectively evaluate amplification should be a definite focus for DCA in the coming year, to coordinate with the start of the rule change. I wonder how many of the DCA judges have worked with a group on any level (HS, DCI, WGI) that has used amplification? I know WGI has done judge training sessions that have covered amplifications/electronics. Hopefully DCA will follow suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Many DCI groups have been slammed for poor balance. I have friends working with groups, GE judges constantly calling it out. What you are correct on: There has never been an official training for judges on how credit/discredit balance with amps. I do feel that needs to happen. The issue is trying to have the sound hit the judges with balance, this ultimately takes away from the audiences enjoyment if sitting in the front rows. front rows? hell 30 rows up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Training judges to effectively evaluate amplification should be a definite focus for DCA in the coming year, to coordinate with the start of the rule change. I wonder how many of the DCA judges have worked with a group on any level (HS, DCI, WGI) that has used amplification? I know WGI has done judge training sessions that have covered amplifications/electronics. Hopefully DCA will follow suit. looking at recaps from last year, many are involved at multiple levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarimbasaurusRex Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) what in effect is the top half of a xylophone, pitch-wise:smile:/> Sorry to have to correct you, yet again, on this. Marching xylos were (are) the exact middle range of the standard concert instrument, chopping only a 5th off the bottom and a few notes off the top. Same goes for the marimba which knocked an octave off both ends (not counting the bass of extended range instruments). Marching bells are exactly the same as their concert counterparts, and marching vibes were actually the lower range of the concert instrument, taking only a 4th off the top. So to say marching keyboard instruments used only the upper range is simply not true at all. One big difference in sound from then to now is of course mallet choice. I was one of the first to rebel against the klangy mallet sound of the 70's and would only use mallets appropriate to the "normal" sound of an instrument, even when judges (yes, judges) insisted we should use something more ear shattering. We still projected just fine as evidenced by recordings. Of course 4 keyboards using softer mallets could not compete with 60+ horns at FF, but why should they? They don't really do that today either, serving an appropriate role between the louder impact points. I think the biggest reason for having big pits is BECAUSE THEY CAN, and that's really the only reason. Any talk about needing more to fulfill an artistic vision is silly, especially with the aid of amplification. No arranger writes 20 different voices of similar timbre simultaneously. There's a heck of a lot of doubling that really just isn't necessary anymore. But they do it, again, because they can. Incidentally, the mallets in my avatar pic are Balter #5's, a medium rubber which I still use quite often in a concert setting, as the more nebulous attack of a yarn mallet tends to get lost in a larger ensemble sound. Edited December 20, 2012 by MarimbasaurusRex 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Sorry to have to correct you, yet again, on this. Marching xylos were (are) the exact middle range of the standard concert instrument, chopping only a 5th off the bottom and a few notes off the top. Same goes for the marimba which knocked an octave off both ends (not counting the bass of extended range instruments). Marching bells are exactly the same as their concert counterparts, and marching vibes were actually the lower range of the concert instrument, taking only a 4th off the top. So to say marching keyboard instruments used only the upper range is simply not true at all. Yamaha standard concert xylophone range is F45-C88 Concert xylophone Yamaha marching xylophone range is F57-C88. Marching xylophone Look at the specs for the ranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) Different brands have different ranges. There are F-C, F-F, and C-C xylos. And I have a set of marching bells that are A-A, while the generic concert bells are G-C or F-C (although now there are extended range glocks available...) BTW, I will have to say the premise of this thread bothers me. Mainly for the reasons more eloquently rebutted by other percussionists in this thread. Why are brass players considered more important musicians than the front ensemble percussionists? That's exclusionary, and offensive to me. I will say that there has to be an equilibrium of the size of the front ensemble somewhere. I see groups with 4,5,6 marimbas and maybe 4-6 vibes too. At BOA, I saw one group with 8 marimbas! The "golden ratio" of how many of each instrument to field has changed over the years, whether that be ratios o the brass sections, or battery percussion, or now the discussion of the front ensemble. Just one more thing to discuss, I guess. Edited December 20, 2012 by Reed 2 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.