Time to unplug drum corps

[MikeD]

Seriously? Kids like iPhones, therefore we should add A&E to drum corps?

I could try to address this with you on an ideological level, and explain how the attraction of drum corps has always been the challenge of performing with a limited set of instrumentation that does not include every state-of-the-art piece of equipment.

You certainly could try such a thing, but it would not be accurate. Show designers and arrangers always look for new and improved equipment and ways to use it, going back before DCI. Yes, they made do until what they were asking for was legalized, but the goal was always to expand the pallette, not reduce it, or even maintain staus quo. Example...before timpani were allowed, corps drum instructors would turn basses on their side, remove one head and tie them together in a variety of configurations to get a timpani-like sound. Once timpani were legalized those things quickly disappeared. Horns moved through all sorts of permutations over time, going back to the 50's. Marching mallets eventually led to the grounded pits, which opened up a new world of percussion.

But how about we try facts instead? There was a surge in youth interest from the late 1990s through about 2003 or 2004, both in membership and fan interest regarding DCI corps. The years 2002 and 2003 saw frequent press releases touting record audition numbers and record ticket sales bolstered by busloads of band kids. Amplification was introduced in DCI starting in the 2004 season, with electronic instruments debuting in 2009. Claims of record audition numbers or ticket sales have been very rare ever since. If electronics attract youth, we should have seen growth in youth involvement over the past 9 years, right?

There have indeed been releases from corps and DCI about auditionees and show attendance numbers over time. One of the DCI releases from last year was just linked to earlier today.

[cixelsyd]

What does a group's decision to not have a battery have to do with the evolution of the front ensemble?

Everything - no one would have competed without a battery prior to the evolution of the front ensemble.

The variation of quantity you're talking about is, in fact, present. It was present before amplification as well.

You think so? Looks to me like we stopped at 8 marimbas/vibes, decided we could not hear them well enough over 70 brass and a 9-5-5 battery at fff, and concluded that amplifying them was the only option. Why did we decide that a ninth keyboard was not an option? And why did we decide that hearing the marimba 99.9% of the time was not good enough, and that it must also be heard at that one rare moment when 70 brass and a 9-5-5 battery are all simultaneously playing a fff accent?

Some time ago, the contrabass (tuba) brass voice made up less than 10% of the hornline. Players were taught to overblow, developing a blasting, ripping sound in order to be heard in some sort of balance with the ensemble. Over time, people decided they wanted to hear the sonorous tone the horn was capable of producing. They did not submit a proposal to electronically amplify contrabasses - they just used more of them.

[glory]

Seriously? Kids like iPhones, therefore we should add A&E to drum corps?

I could try to address this with you on an ideological level, and explain how the attraction of drum corps has always been the challenge of performing with a limited set of instrumentation that does not include every state-of-the-art piece of equipment. But how about we try facts instead? There was a surge in youth interest from the late 1990s through about 2003 or 2004, both in membership and fan interest regarding DCI corps. The years 2002 and 2003 saw frequent press releases touting record audition numbers and record ticket sales bolstered by busloads of band kids. Amplification was introduced in DCI starting in the 2004 season, with electronic instruments debuting in 2009. Claims of record audition numbers or ticket sales have been very rare ever since. If electronics attract youth, we should have seen growth in youth involvement over the past 9 years, right?

In reference to the two bits I bolded above...

First, I doubt the attraction for the mainstream (mainstream of drum corps, that is) was ever the limited array of instruments. At best I'd agree that participants were sometimes pleased to use instrumentation to differentiate with high school and college bands. More likely they cared little about the limits and a lot about experience, excellence and other attributes. Now granted, when many graduated to alum status and DCP personnas, the limited tool box suddenly was amplified in importance - or so they say.

Second, whether electronics should have spawned more growth, I'd remind all that the G-bugle, all-acoustic, familiar-music, GE-synchronized decades before Bb horns, visual emphasis and electronic amplification not only didn't spark any growth in the activity, they saw its greatest decline. That's not to blame G bugles, familiar music, etc., for anything. Rather, the point we should take from both trends is that external factors are having far more influence on our activity than internal instrumentation and programming choices.

More generally, it's absurd to think that drum corps can thrive as a total anachronism as if locked in some previous time. It's always going to be anachronistic in part. We should embrace the charm that offers but only to an extent. Shutting ourselves off from context that surrounds us is suicide. Electroncis are part of the music world. We're part of the music world. Pretending the music world hasn't changed is condemning ourselves to the status of fife and drum corps.

HH

Edited May 30, 2013 by glory

[BRASSO]

Everything - no one would have competed without a battery prior to the evolution of the front ensemble.

Some time ago, the contrabass (tuba) brass voice made up less than 10% of the hornline. Players were taught to overblow, developing a blasting, ripping sound in order to be heard in some sort of balance with the ensemble. Over time, people decided they wanted to hear the sonorous tone the horn was capable of producing. They did not submit a proposal to electronically amplify contrabasses - they just used more of them.

Yes but today, even 20 tubas ( unheard of in numbers in the " blasting days ") playing well in ensemble won't place you in the top 9 anymore. Even playing sectional tuba solos with ( as you said ) " sonorous sounds " won't get you much of anything on today's sheets.

My guess, we'll begin to see Corps revert back to what BD uses in the numbers of tubas... 10-12 most years, and focus their energies in areas that DOES generate the most points on todays score sheets, ie Guard, Visual. BD have definately figured it all out. Despite the fact that lots and lots of Corps go out with between 14-20 tubas most years now, I don't think BD has ever gone out with more than 12 tubas.

Edited May 30, 2013 by BRASSO

[cixelsyd]

Second, whether electronics should have spawned more growth, I'd remind all that the G-bugle, all-acoustic, familiar-music, GE-synchronized decades before Bb horns, visual emphasis and electronic amplification not only didn't spark any growth in the activity, they saw its greatest decline.

No growth? ALL the growth of the activity, from no-such-thing to the pre-DCI peak, took place under the G-bugle, all-acoustic model. And yes, the decline from that peak to where we were at the millenium was also under that model.

More generally, it's absurd to think that drum corps can thrive as a total anachronism as if locked in some previous time. It's always going to be anachronistic in part. We should embrace the charm that offers but only to an extent. Shutting ourselves off from context that surrounds us is suicide. Electroncis are part of the music world. We're part of the music world. Pretending the music world hasn't changed is condemning ourselves to the status of fife and drum corps.

Which is what - only a few hundred performing groups and no ESPN airtime? Counting corps, that might be a step forward.

[actucker]

Everything - no one would have competed without a battery prior to the evolution of the front ensemble.

And yet you claim that somehow this is an argument against amplification? The fact is, any group could decide to have, or not to have any section in the corps. There would obviously be consequences involved programmatically as well as competitively. Clearly the idea of not fielding a battery suggests a lot of risk as you have not seen a single front line group consider it.

You think so? Looks to me like we stopped at 8 marimbas/vibes, decided we could not hear them well enough over 70 brass and a 9-5-5 battery at fff, and concluded that amplifying them was the only option. Why did we decide that a ninth keyboard was not an option? And why did we decide that hearing the marimba 99.9% of the time was not good enough, and that it must also be heard at that one rare moment when 70 brass and a 9-5-5 battery are all simultaneously playing a fff accent?

Some time ago, the contrabass (tuba) brass voice made up less than 10% of the hornline. Players were taught to overblow, developing a blasting, ripping sound in order to be heard in some sort of balance with the ensemble. Over time, people decided they wanted to hear the sonorous tone the horn was capable of producing. They did not submit a proposal to electronically amplify contrabasses - they just used more of them.

Really? 99.9% of the time? You clearly aren't listening to the same drum corps I am. Again, I'm not suggesting that the front ensemble should be the primary voice, or even that it should be heard at all times. I'm simply suggesting that perhaps the option to be heard as a part of the ensemble at any time might be preferable to being relegated to any time the brass isn't playing over mezzoforte. Perhaps the option of more creative writing, or more dynamic intricacy is preferable over triple forte octaves in order to be heard at all. Its not hard to look at the way front ensembles played in the late 90's and the way they play now and see that its a much more natural, and musical way to play.

As for numbers, sure, in a vacuum without corps numbers being limited the answer could be more instruments. There is often talk of the "arms race" in the evolution of the front, which is how we got to the numbers often employed. However, more equipment means more trucks (and no, speakers and sound equipment don't take up the same space as 2 or three extra marimbas, and 2 or three extra vibraphones). More members in the front means fewer in the hornline, battery or guard. There's way more to it than simply "roll out a few more of those". But ignoring that helps you support your argument, so whatever.

As for your tuba example, thanks for supporting my point. That sound out of the tuba section was not acceptable. Thus a solution was found. Wirelessly mic'ing tubas as they run all over the field isn't exactly practical, so more tubas made more sense. Adding more marimbas and vibraphones is less practical than simply amplifying the ensemble you already have. I would explain why the numbers we use in modern front ensembles make complete sense considering the way front ensembles are currently orchestrated, but you don't seem interested in actually knowing anything about the topic. You are quickly fitting right into the three categories of arguments that I hear against amplification. Either you don't know enough about the front equipment to realize the difference between a modern front ensemble and that of 10 years ago, you're still stuck in a thirty year old mindset that the front ensemble is just there for show and shouldn't be a part of the musical package, or you actually believe balance wasn't a problem before 2004. I'm guessing all three. Either way, I'm not going to convince you.

Instead I'll simply say this. The move to amplification (again, not even getting into the "goo" conversation) is not about an imperative that we hear the front ensemble all of the time. Its about options. Brass lines wanted the option to have valves on their instruments, opening up lots of possibilities in terms of orchestration, repertoire, etc. Drill writers wanted the option to write asymmetrical drill, opening up a completely different approach to visual design. Corps directors wanted the option to move to Bb in order to draw players from college or high school programs without the need to learn a new instrument. Timpani players wanted the option to get past the age of 30 without massive back problems, so they put those heave ######## on the ground. I could go on and on. Each change opens up options. How each corps chooses to take advantage of those options is up to them. If you think every corps approaches mic'ing and sound mixing the same way, you're not paying attention.

[BRASSO]

Pretending the music world hasn't changed is condemning ourselves to the status of fife and drum corps.

HH

Of course " the music world has changed ". But if someone might not like a particular show, or for example a particular annoying sound of ear splitting, unappealing thunderous goo coming from the pit, you believe that this means that they want to condemn themselves to the status of hearing a woodwind, ie a " fife ", in its place ? Nobody can claim that DCI Drum Corps has not had " change " over the years. Holy mackeral, one would be hard pressed to find another youth competitive activity that has undergone such radical, transformative changes the last 40 years as have DCI Drum Corps. Lots of youth activities by comparison to DCI have had virtually no changes at all, except cosmetic changes around the edges. Yet most of them have grown fans, grown in popularity, despite the comparative lack of changes that we've seen with Drum Corps. So its not the lack of change that has brought us to where we are today. So we should be able to set aside any notion that we have not had enough " change " over the years in DCI Drum Corps. Good grief, good bad or indifferent, this activity has been chock full of changes, to the point that it barely resembles its earlier incantations at all. This much we should all here be able to agree upon it seems to me anyway. Whether we like or don't like these wholesale changes is a different topic altogther. But DCI drum Corps has had more " change " than anything else imaginable by comparison, imo.

Edited May 30, 2013 by BRASSO

[glory]

No growth? ALL the growth of the activity, from no-such-thing to the pre-DCI peak, took place under the G-bugle, all-acoustic model. And yes, the decline from that peak to where we were at the millenium was also under that model.

Apologies, Bb, acoustic "decades" reference was meant to be the 70s and 80s. But of course you're correct.

HH

[drilltech1]

Yes but today, even 20 tubas ( unheard of in numbers in the " blasting days ") playing well in ensemble won't place you in the top 9 anymore. Even playing sectional tuba solos with ( as you said ) " sonorous sounds " won't get you much of anything on today's sheets.

My guess, we'll begin to see Corps revert back to what BD uses in the numbers of tubas... 10-12 most years, and focus their energies in areas that DOES generate the most points on todays score sheets, ie Guard, Visual. BD have definately figured it all out. Despite the fact that lots and lots of Corps go out with between 14-20 tubas most years now, I don't think BD has ever gone out with more than 12 tubas.

The type of drill/visuals attempted, the rep of music, and ultimately the acoustics on the field and in the judges' box will have more of an influence for the number and type of tuba/contra used than how many BD uses. These are not cheap instruments bought without forethought.

BD often has a high brass oriented sound to match the type of music they are performing. Other corps pivot toward a deeper sound (e.g. Phantom using euphoniums rather than baritone horns. During their playing of Biebl's Ave Maria, they used no high brass but switched the trumpets, etc. to low brass instruments for that number.)

How much field coverage, at what tempo and velocity, at what distance and for what duration are also factors which influence how many horns and what voices are chosen.

[Mello Dude]

Ya those 80's contra lines were always blasting.