Jump to content

DCA Should Limit and Standardize Pit Size


Recommended Posts

you have to things here going head to heard that often don'tgo together like peanut butter and chocolate.

you have the business decisions, aka worrying about how to pay for something.

and you have the artisitic desires and visions, which usually do not give a rats ### about the cost.

Now, I do think amplification can actually limit some long term costs, as it may extend the equipments life because it won't have to be hit so hard. so there I see some sound business thinking.

Conversly, the artist will just want more, which only drives costs up initially.

and quite honestly, and I saythis with love, some DCA front ensembles need to do some serious inward looks before the sound they produce are amplified. It could actually come back to hurt them on the score sheets.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not going to even worry about this until 2014. Who knows how many corps with come out with amps the first year and who knows just how much of a competitive edge they will give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is where I stand. Amplification is a double edge sword as illuded to by some others. Amplifying a bad player is like putting a neon sign over the head of the one guy who is always just off of his drill spot! And even when top dollar is spent on amplification, it can malufunction and be hurtful rather than helpful. All that said, I support amplification and if one group spend tons of dough on electronics, that should not play a role in scoring over a group that has selected not to. However, chances are good that if a corps can afford to spend top dollar on Amps, then they probably have a decent staff and other amenities that would/could/might score them higher anyway. Lets face it, if all corps could afford to bring on amplification, then most would. For a group to select not to use electronics, it will 90% be based on financial reasons, 10% based on just not wanting to change or take on the new adventurer and risk of amps. The argument of 1 tuba versus amping the pit is only helpful if your corps is buying new $8000 tubas each year. If your group does not have $8K for a tuba, then they dont have $8K for amps. But dollars to dollars, the argument is sound.

Pit limitation is tough because you start to get into restrictor plate racing. Making all groups level is not artistic. Gimmicks are what we all love about this activity. Whats the next crazy gimmick? 36 bass drums, or a drumline that puts down the drums and picks up accordians? So if a group wants to put out 12 Marimbas (who could afford that???) But if thats the gimmick or the musicially appropriate or design appropriate decision for that years production, then so be it. I would perhaps consider limiting the pit to a percentage of the total membership, so we can perhaps ensure we remain a marching arts activity rather than 12 marching members behind a symphony orchestra. AND I would whole heartedly support the regulation against the use of extra bodies in the pit to ensure a corps meets the minimum member requirements. Class A corps with 15 marching members and 20 in the pit is a con and is not fooling anyone. But it is not against the rules, so it happens. So again, pit members limited to a percentage of the total corps membership. Just my 2 cents, rant away.

Edited by 27thAvantCadets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then one more player could play THIS for a rack...

big-drum-kit.jpg

PICK ME, PICK ME!icon_4.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have chosen to stay out of most discussions - after all - I AM retired... I will make a point here which might seem to support Lee's comments:

When I was corps director of a top 5 DCA corps, as a businessman budget was everything. One of the things I tracked was how much was spent per performer overall and then I broke it down per section. It was as you would expect... Horn line was by far the cheapest due to larger number and the number of seasons a set of horns lasts. Color Guard was next cheapest. Then came the BIG expenses - first drum line due to the amount of ancillary spending necessary and the cost of instruction for so few members... had a staff member for each small group: Bass Drums, Tenors, Snares and even cymbals... Then came the PIT... The amount of money spent on the pit per person - instruction, ancillary items, amotized cost of equipment etc. was ridiculous... it was enough to make me sick. It made it obvious that the beginning of the end of the activity I have shared with you for over half a century was in the late 70's when the pit as we now know it began.

The good news is that the pit gave opportunities for those performers that might have otherwise never have happened. Drum Corps is all about people (or at least is supposed to be) and I have many dear friends who played in the pit and deserve all the credit that can be possible to give to them.

BUT, with the advent of electronics and its extreme cost, Lee's comments about limiting the pit some how seem to deserve consideration.

Probably because I devoted such a large part of my life to this activity, but it seems now that every week I lose someone who was like a brother to me. This morning Joey Geswaldo, last week Dave "Waxer" Hayden - who's next? Whenever looking at the activity, its costs and its changes PLEASE remember the PEOPLE... and make decisions balanced by the people those decisions effect.

Thank you for a very informed reply.

BTW - what's your take on the added storage space needed for hauling pit equipment around? With only few exceptions, pit equipment has got to take up a lot more room on the equipment truck than most. As such, does that create added expense?

I've got to think there's a "keeping up with the Jones'" mentality. "If the top corps do it, then we have to do it, too". As such, undo financial demands can pressure other corps into greater, unsustainable expense.

Maybe there's a reason the activity started out being called: DRUM and BUGLE corps! - - - it was economical and encouraged particpation by the thousands.

Edited by drumcorpsfever
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this...

1 marimba, 1 xylo, 1 vibe, 1 set of bells & 1 set of timps - all amplified.

Then one more player could play THIS for a rack...

big-drum-kit.jpg

no gong? forget it

:tongue:/>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have to things here going head to heard that often don'tgo together like peanut butter and chocolate.

you have the business decisions, aka worrying about how to pay for something.

and you have the artisitic desires and visions, which usually do not give a rats ### about the cost.

Now, I do think amplification can actually limit some long term costs, as it may extend the equipments life because it won't have to be hit so hard. so there I see some sound business thinking.

Conversly, the artist will just want more, which only drives costs up initially.

and quite honestly, and I saythis with love, some DCA front ensembles need to do some serious inward looks before the sound they produce are amplified. It could actually come back to hurt them on the score sheets.

Jeff;

You may add:

You have people in the first 5 or more rows, and the Disabled seating area, that get to "See and Hear", not much more than the Pit.

(and as we know DCA uses a lot of smaller stadiums. You may be talking about 1/4 of your "Paying Fans in the Stands".)

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...