What do you think is wrong with Drum Corps today (if anything)?

[Jeff Ream]

I find it interesting you can focus on sound effects when that blazing drill is running past you.

not everyone is into drill.

[corps8294]

One of the biggest negatives of the current drum corps model is the lack of individual identity amongst the corps. There has been a "keeping up and emulating the joneses" ideal. Too many corps trying to be and do what those at the tip-top are doing.

And all this over the top body work for the sake of body work by the horns and drums is nothing short of silly. It just doesn't look good.

[CrunchyTenor]

I agree...when the synths are used to cover the low brass sound it ruins the nice lush hornline balance and sound

That is not what they do. They enhance the sound of the corps, not cover it up.

I'm sure that's the intent, Mike. The reality is they cover up the brass sound, or add a low bass sound that doesn't occur in nature, except in earthquakes.

Your not at the same shows I'm at apparently I hear very effective synths because I'm not actively looking for poor synth design like you do. I do NOT think DCI should be in movie sound effect business. It would cost a lot of money to get original proffesional recordings of sound effects like they do for movies. Plus, Those sounds that you hear are enhanced with computers. They are not simply amplified acoustic sounds.

Hi, Charlie,

You've put a lot of "Yous" in your response. Is this going to get personal? :satisfied:/>

Why would you assume I'm "actively looking for poor synth design"? I go to shows to enjoy brass, percussion and visual. I go to sit back and immerse myself in all that drum corps offers. I don't have to look for poor synth design. It's right in my face.

I used the foley example as a way to show that there are more ways to create a sonic effect than by artificially producing it. They are placed in the soundtrack by computers, and oftentimes the levels are adjusted to work with the concurrent sounds.

I certainly like what SCV did but I don't think we should rely on simply amplified acoustic sounds. What they did was creative yes, but I think the sound design that BD and Cadets and Crown do is just as creative. You are stuck in this mindset that creativity is doing a lot with little when that is not the case. With your argument you make it seem that synths could never be creative because *gasp* it uses "electricity" and "computers". And that sounds silly doesn't it?

That's a pretty big assumption, isn't it? Really, don't try to put words in my mouth, or thoughts in my head, to support your POV.

Drum corps have ben using sound effects for decades. The difference is the performers used to create those sounds themselves, and the designers had to figure out how to make it happen. So, tell me again how it's "creative" to add a patch to the effects bank on a synth?

No one cares if you use a train whistle or a sampled train whistle. The effect is the train whistle and how that creates a mood. I do not that just because a sound is made electronically that it is automatically inferior to a sound played acoustically and I think drum corps fans should start thinking the same way. You ostracize yourself from the production that modern corps put on the field.

There's another broad assumption. How many people did you poll to come up with "No one"? So, is it possible that the ostracization is coming the other way? That maybe thousands of drum corps fans (and their $$$) are being put-off by the foreign sounds of synth in an acoustic medium?

You need to view synths as simply sonic support. HOW it is done is not the emphasis but what is done is. I realize this is different than other aspects where how things are done are part of the effect but with the case of samples it isn't and that is OKAY! There are plenty of amazing HOW going on and DCI hasn't lost much in its ability to play an audio sample of helicopters instead having the battery play them. To me, I don't think we miss out. If anything it pushes the acoustic ensembles to really be imaginative and not simply produce sounds/effects that can be done by a synth (which is far more broad than everyone here seems to think)

Nah, I don't need to do anything. Too often it's far from "sonic support" and more like sonic assault.

The argument is contradictory. To say that the HOW of pushing a button on a synth is "amazing" is ridiculous. What's amazing, and far more creative, is figuring out how to produce effects acoustically.

So, evidently, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But, please, don't try to pour the Kool-Aid down my throat.

I find it interesting you can focus on sound effects when that blazing drill is running past you.

Funny, my ears are located to the left and right of my eyes, and oddly enough, both senses can work in concert with each other! Go figure!

Garry in Vegas

PS FWIW, they seemed to have the balance pretty well worked out at DeKalb Sunday night. It could be familiarity with a known location...or dumb luck! :tongue:/>

Edited July 17, 2013 by CrunchyTenor

[skywhopper]

I can't hear it, so I'd like some evidence of what we're talking about. Can you cite some example corps/year on FN with a time stamp (or description) of where the low brass (or other brass) is really the synth/recorded sound?

Here's the first example I noticed this year: 6/28/13 Muncie, IN, Madison Scouts - The high brass start a fanfare at 1:32 or so (when they hit the fleur de lis form) and the contras are grounded. There's no low-end sound for 20+ seconds but then at 1:55, the contras are up and suddenly there's a LOT of bass sound. I wouldn't call it synthesized or recorded brass sound, but at the low end, your ears can't tell the difference, if it's blended well. In this recording it wasn't blended well at all, and I can tell it's a synth sound overpowering whatever sound the contras might be making.

Or, 6/22/13 Akron, OH, Bluecoats - Starting at 0:42 you hear the walking down bassline and it really blares in the big impact that follows.

Or check out Crown's 2010 finals performance from 13:00 to the end. Or Blue Devils 2010, 9:59 to the end. Or in Cadets 2011 at about 1:20 or so you can hear it.

The midrange support is harder to pick out, but it happens, too. I've heard it at too many live performances. It's not that they're using a brass sound, but they're using a fuzzy synth patch that melds with the brass sound in a way that's impossible to pick out if it's mixed right.

EDIT: in fact, I found the worst example I remember, which was some synth string patch doubling the backfield brass during a mello soli in Phantom 2011: Check out 7/16/11 DCI Minnesota Phantom Regiment at 3:02. For one, the synth is overpowering the featured section in that particular mix (I don't think it was just the mike placement, because I had the same experience live at the Rockford TOC show that year), but they're also filling in midrange for the backfield brass. Luckily they mostly fixed the issue by finals, although you can hear some gooey bass at the same point in the show in the finals recording (starting about 3:40 in that video).

Edited July 17, 2013 by skywhopper

[N.E. Brigand]

You're not at the same shows I'm at apparently: I hear very effective synths, because I'm not actively looking for poor synth design like you do.

Why would you assume I'm "actively looking for poor synth design"? I go to shows to enjoy brass, percussion and visual. I go to sit back and immerse myself in all that drum corps offers. I don't have to look for poor synth design. It's right in my face.

Exactly. I hadn't followed drum corps for several years when I decided to go to the cinema screening of the 2008 Quarterfinals. I was thrilled by the shows I saw there and attended my first live show in ten years at Massillon next August. I had no idea that rule changes for 2009 meant that pit amplification was now to be supplemented by synthesizer, so I couldn't have been "looking for" their effects! But I couldn't help but notice that several corps were, as it seemed to me, "cheating" in their big hits by pumping in an unnatural bass sound. It was very disappointing.

[N.E. Brigand]

No one cares if you use a train whistle or a sampled train whistle. The effect is the train whistle and how that creates a mood. I do not that just because a sound is made electronically that it is automatically inferior to a sound played acoustically and I think drum corps fans should start thinking the same way. You ostracize yourself from the production that modern corps put on the field.

If I go to see a play, and instead I am shown a film version of the same story, should I be told that it doesn't matter because the effect is the same?

[geluf]

I just want to say that it is hilarious to me that "Bb Horns" got any votes at all, since the kind of people who don't like them almost universally consider electronics a much bigger sin.

Bb Horn controversy in 2013!

Edited July 18, 2013 by geluf

[shaners]

To me (and just me), I'd goose the sheets to make visual GE just a little less important, and give music GE just a slight edge over it. I think that alone could change the flow and programming on so many shows it would cover a lot of the "where's the musical phrasing?" or "chop 'n bop" complaints that people have had over the years about drum corps.

Yeah, I know drum corps is about the blending of music/visual ("art that moves!"), but I guess I've always come down on the side of trying to shape the visual production to the will of the music charts.

I couldn't tell you too many drill moves from the 1993 Blue Devils, but I know that entire music book in my head (note: this is not an indication that I want G bugles, or some other DINO RAWR SMASH stuff, just an observation: look at the amount of threads devoted to "favorite drill moves" versus "favorite music charts" for where I'm going with this).

Not real worried about A&E and other stuff . . .at this point, I just want to be entertained. Anybody knows this far along in the A&E game that you have to cover your bases first with the primary ingredients of brass, percussion, and guard before you look at adding those kinds of things organically, lest you end up with BAC 2004 (shudder).

Every drum corps since the beginning of time has programmed to what the sheets want, so any sort of far reaching "change" has to come from tweaking the judging criteria that has been set.

I have no idea how to accomplish said tweak above, though.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Disclaimer: I have not read this whole thread so i'm not up to snuff on what has already been said. But i'm a very basic drum corp enthusiast... Cool Music + Cool Drill / Movement = Cool Show. I feel the emphasis on GE "moments" has taken away from the organic development of show design, creating afore mentioned "chop n' bop." Is that to say that i dislike modern drum corp? Absolutely not....

I believe that GE 'moments' are much more satisfying when they are dictated by the organic growth of the music. Opposed to "well our theme is 'boats' so every 45 seconds we must have a cool event that characterizes the ocean or a sail boat or, "oh no we're sinking, quick, play fast tempo-abstract music that makes you feel tense..."

you get my point.

[charlie1223]

If I go to see a play, and instead I am shown a film version of the same story, should I be told that it doesn't matter because the effect is the same?

This is not a great analogy because you are being dualistic. It's not just a play or a video. Drum corps if we stick this anolgy, is definetly a combination of highly edited and manufactured elements and live "play" elements. By making some elements "movie" elements they should enhance the "play" elements.

I do not ever make the argument that some sounds aren't better left to acoustic means. However I am saying that acoustic elements are sometimes better left to electronic and visa versa.

You are not going to a drum corps show expecting zero electronics, you would be a nooby if you did.

What I'm saying is that drum corps is both a movie and play and we should use both Elements together to create te best possible experience.

[charlie1223]

I'm sure that's the intent, Mike. The reality is they cover up the brass sound, or add a low bass sound that doesn't occur in nature, except in earthquakes.

Hi, Charlie,

You've put a lot of "Yous" in your response. Is this going to get personal? :satisfied:/>/>/>/>/>

Why would you assume I'm "actively looking for poor synth design"? I go to shows to enjoy brass, percussion and visual. I go to sit back and immerse myself in all that drum corps offers. I don't have to look for poor synth design. It's right in my face.

I used the foley example as a way to show that there are more ways to create a sonic effect than by artificially producing it. They are placed in the soundtrack by computers, and oftentimes the levels are adjusted to work with the concurrent sounds.

That's a pretty big assumption, isn't it? Really, don't try to put words in my mouth, or thoughts in my head, to support your POV.

Drum corps have ben using sound effects for decades. The difference is the performers used to create those sounds themselves, and the designers had to figure out how to make it happen. So, tell me again how it's "creative" to add a patch to the effects bank on a synth?

There's another broad assumption. How many people did you poll to come up with "No one"? So, is it possible that the ostracization is coming the other way? That maybe thousands of drum corps fans (and their $$$) are being put-off by the foreign sounds of synth in an acoustic medium?

Nah, I don't need to do anything. Too often it's far from "sonic support" and more like sonic assault.

The argument is contradictory. To say that the HOW of pushing a button on a synth is "amazing" is ridiculous. What's amazing, and far more creative, is figuring out how to produce effects acoustically.

So, evidently, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But, please, don't try to pour the Kool-Aid down my throat.

Funny, my ears are located to the left and right of my eyes, and oddly enough, both senses can work in concert with each other! Go figure!

Garry in Vegas

PS FWIW, they seemed to have the balance pretty well worked out at DeKalb Sunday night. It could be familiarity with a known location...or dumb luck! :tongue:/>/>/>/>/>

Please don't take my "you's" personally it's how i write. You can just as easily replace my you's with "what your text seemed to explain to me..." I obviously don't know "you" at all.

At that note...

I think you are confusing the How and What example. HOW a sound is produced (by pushing a button) is not amazing. But how it is designed and how it connects to all the elements is the creative part.

For example Cadets have this sample in their show of a male choir and after the release of the brass in the ballad this sample softly plays. And it is the MOST HAUNTING, dark and spine tingling moment in the entire show. The soft echos of the choir after the brass release is unbelievably effective and there would be no othe way to produce that acoustically to meet the same effect. The creativity comes in with the design of the moment and not how the moment is created physically. But what is produced (the dark choir patch) and the effect created (haunting chill after the brass release)

It's a GREAT little moment.

Whild i think finding ways to play sounds acoustically can be creative it's often times largely ineffective or pointless if it can be achieved to a higher effect with synths. You have to pick your moments...

Would you really want BD's wolf calls to be done "acoustically" on the field? The synth patches are used to great effect!

What is an example of a sound effect being done this year that you think would be better and more creative if done acoustically?? I mean do you have an example?

Edited July 18, 2013 by charlie1223