Pit Amplification Almost Worthless..You Decide

[Kamarag]

The Goo is getting better though. Slowly.... BD... not so much. They even had goo when it was just amplification and no electronics.

Please. Devils weren't in the top five for goo. Not even close. Phantom was the clear winner of the Most Thunderous Goo award, followed closely by Madison and Cadets. Those three were in their own class when it came to horrible mixes.

[kickhaltsforlife]

Please. Devils weren't in the top five for goo. Not even close. Phantom was the clear winner of the Most Thunderous Goo award, followed closely by Madison and Cadets. Those three were in their own class when it came to horrible mixes.

Ah yes, thank you for reminding me. Good old Phantom... they have become QUITE WORSE with the goo. And I would agree they were number one on my list. Not to mention the sounds they choose just don't sound good? Is it the model of synth? Their modifications? Sounds very cheesy anytime they do anything with their synth.

[N.E. Brigand]

I have yet to hear an argument against mallet and percussion amplification that makes any sense at all.

The argument is, at its heart, related to the argument against the very existence of the pit. What is drum corps? What isn't drum corps? You almost certainly have some answer to that question: "Drum corps is X but not Y." (If you don't have an answer, we can't have a discussion in the first place.)

Well, for some people, a drum corps is a marching brass and percussion ensemble. For those people, the pit makes no sense. (I know someone who's felt that way about marching bands since he first saw one--when the pit already existed!) They don't march. And since groups that don't march aren't drum corps, groups with pits aren't drum corps.

Another way that some people would have defined drum corps, for about a century, was that they were acoustic brass and percussion ensembles. For those people, amplification makes no sense. An amplified pit is not acoustic, and therefore groups with amplified pits aren't drum corps.

(Both arguments also appeal to those who appreciate the sheer physical challenge that they feel drum corps ought to have. See my signature.)

These arguments have at least the virtue of consistency. But most people try to get along and allow for compromises. So as long as the vast majority of the members march, they can accept a pit. And as long as amplification is used sparingly and not to boost the sound of an instrument that could be heard naturally, they can accept it. Some of the amplified voice in 2004-2008 was pretty bad, but at least the members had to put effort into delivering the sound; now they often just need to get it right on a recording: the pressure is off! Or maybe we don't need a corps member at all: we can just use an existing recording of John de Lancie reciting "The Raven" or Marlene Dietrich singing "Falling in Love Again". (Are the judges even allowed to find fault with the quality of John or Marlene's voices?) For the first five years of DCI amplification, who imagined that a brass instrument might be miked? Now it is commonplace. Someone is going to respond to my post to say how beautiful BD's flugelhorn solo was, and how that sound would have been impossible without a microphone. (Wait for it, wait for it...) But if drum corps has any definition at all, then there are always going to be things which it is not, and that ought to be OK.

If you're like almost every fan, you'll agree that a New York Philharmonic concert and a Lady Gaga concert are both not drum corps. But can you explain why, in terms that don't also exclude today's drum corps--or the drum corps that some fans, like MikeD, hope soon to see? It's not because they have members that don't march. It's not because they include singing. It's not because they include synthesizers. For Mike, it's not because they include strings or woodwinds. All of those things are, or may as well be, part of drum corps.

[Musicfanatic7232]

I say amplify it because if you don't, they won't be heard over the hornline and battery. I like that you can heard the pit because they have cool parts

[dcibrando]

Everything is George Hopkins fault yet is was voted on and I see almost every corps doing it so....

With that being said, I think amplification could be used correctly but the other electronic "junk" and mic'ing of horn soloists are a little too far in my opinion

Edited August 13, 2013 by dcibrando

[MikeD]

Number 2: If you are not a keyboard player how so you even know what is correct technique? If you look at all the top corps they play with exceptional technique and YES amplifying the pit has helped that along. The one thing people don't understand is that amplifying pit doesn't mean they don't have to play loudly or high it allows the entire spectrum of technique and sound to sound correct from far away.

Not just technique, but better mallet selection as well, which cuts wear and tear on wooden bars. Even the little band I teach has modified our mallet choices after miccing the marimba and vibes.

[cixelsyd]

Number 1: I'm not sorry you hate it.

Number 2: If you are not a keyboard player how so you even know what is correct technique? If you look at all the top corps they play with exceptional technique and YES amplifying the pit has helped that along. The one thing people don't understand is that amplifying pit doesn't mean they don't have to play loudly or high it allows the entire spectrum of technique and sound to sound correct from far away.

Number 3: The number of people you have in the pit is not just about volume but colors and harmonies aswell. Cadets pit had the same number of keyboard players and synth players as every other top pit in DCI. If there numbers were actually 1 or 2 people more its because of there timpani and rack players who's certain colors are changed from far away without the help of amplification.

Number 4: Amplifyed Front Ensembles with electronics are ####### amazing and Pits have never sounded better than they do now. NEVER. There is no valid argument to dispute this otherwise. I cannot believe that people want to return to the rinky tink pits of the past.

#5 - thanks for demonstrating the dramatic differences between the "logic" used to sell this rule change and the reality of its implementation.

[Galen]

Now...some observations

Number 1: For some reason it hit me in Allentown this year. The electronics are (At many points) drowning out the pit.

And also the hornline.

[cixelsyd]

You may or may not have been aware but drum corps percussion had been ostracized by much of large Percussion community in the past because of manner of playing was so violently different. What was deemed acceptable and musical in drum corps was down right ridiculed in the concert world.

I hate to break this to you, but miking a marimba and blasting its sound over loudspeakers at a football field is also ridiculed in the concert world.

[cixelsyd]

Listen to SCV's "Castle on a Cloud" pit feature, or Coats intro, and tell me they'd be better if the kids were pounding the crap out of the instruments to project to the press box.

It is not necessary to "pound the crap out of the instruments" to project to the press box.

How many world-class pits use rosewood these days, vs. how many did when I marched? (two: us and SCV)

Zero. Modern drum corps uses the electronically amplified derivative of rosewood as sensed by a nearby microphone.

How much more complex and interesting are the mallet arrangements now, vs. when you had to double and triple every part to have it be heard?

First of all, that is an enormous exaggeration. Mallet parts never required doubling when the battery and hornline were not both playing fortissimo.

Anyway, most sections of a drum corps double parts. Horns are 8, 12 or 24 to a part. Snares, 9 to a part. Yet, they are still interesting.

How much better do today's timpani parts sound vs. in my day when the player had to pound?

I keep hearing that tympani are going away. Already, several corps have simply gone without tympani. How much better did they sound?