Pit Amplification Almost Worthless..You Decide

[Jeff Ream]

ok here we go. he briefly touches on costs, it musthave been supporting interviews where he said about smaller pits. Love how he says it's going to grow the audience.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.arts.marching.drumcorps/2003$20rules$20proposals/rec.arts.marching.drumcorps/HqiZClXa1P0/_2i7D69yK2MJ

Full text of DCI rules change proposal

Editor's note: The following is the full text of the rule change

proposals to allow electronics and amplification into Drum Corps

International competitions. The DCI Board will vote on the matter over

the last weekend of January. Stay tuned to this website for updates.

An Annual Exercise

"The 2002 Version --- Effort #12 (I do believe)

Presented by George Hopkins

The Presentation for Proposals Allowing the use of Electronic

Instruments and Amplification within the Marching Music Idiom Fondly

called,

"Drum and Bugle Corps"

Rule Change #1 – Beginning with the summer of 2003, the

instruments knows as "front percussion," or "the pit," will be able to

be amplified with the use of microphones, speakers, mixer boards and

all other necessary electronic equipment. The amplification of the

human voice would also be allowed.

A marching member of the corps must do the mixing of the different

inputs within the confines of the current field and. Coaching is

acceptable.

Battery Percussion, and wind instruments may not be amplified.

Intentional amplification of battery or wind instruments will be

awarded a 5-point penalty at the digression of the content

coordinator. If none is available, the chief judge may grant the

penalty.

Rule Change #2 – Beginning with the summer of 2003, electronic

instruments can be utilized in any performance sanctioned by Drum

Corps International. These instruments cannot include any wind

instrument currently considered illegal within the activities if DCI.

What can be used would include, but not be limited to electronic

keyboards and electronic drum machines. The intention of the rule is

to allow for the inclusion of those instruments within the percussion

field that have risen with the growth of electronic music. Guitars

would not be allowed.

All instruments would have to be played in real time –

Translation; one stroke equals one response. (NO TAPED Sequencing.)

Sampling would be allowed.

Rationale and Discussion

The Conservative Approach

First of all, the intention of these two proposals is to allow for the

corps of DCI, those who wish to, to utilize the basics of

amplification and electronic instruments. Although the author would

favor a " wide-open" approach to diversity, for the sake of the

masses, the strong suggestion is that we move forward with our feet

firmly on the ground.

If, after some time with the basics, people begin to see the

possibility for quality performance, then perhaps these very proposals

will be revisited.

These proposals have passed the instructors’ caucuses year after

year, and in fact, even within the management centered Rules Congress

Vote, there is acceptance.

The Creative Logic

There is a school of thought that says true genius arrives when we

confine the creator, forcing rules and limitations upon the product.

Only in this way, say some, can we see who indeed is truly a master.

Although a fine philosophy, one might point to the world of drum corps

and say, "alas, I can see we have very few geniuses devoting their

skills to the world of marching music".

I say this as a quasi-creator, who has been a part of a few marching

music presentations.

I have tried to tell stories without words, I have worked to balance

acoustic sounds that are not meant to be balanced, and yes I have

lived a life without the inclusion of percussion accessories. I have

pretended to hear the Latin Percussion on the front sideline, I have

watched in admiration as keyboard players perfect the art of overhead

slams, I have prayed in vain for the sound of a saxophone in a grand

jazz ballad, and I have wished to be able to direct the audience to

the intention of a magnificent idea.

What am I hoping to achieve with this change?

I would like to make it possible within the activity, for some new

developments. Here listed are a few, granted my thoughts alone. Indeed

giving credit to the minds of the drum corps designers, albeit not

geniuses J , there is much, much more that is possible.

I would like to someday see and/or hear:

Keyboard players who attack the instrument at all times with the grace

and sophistication anticipated my instrument and mallet designers.

The sound of a triangle, wind chimes, or woodblock, at times other

than those where the winds are forced to play at pppppp.

A show about America, where the words and quotes of great men and

women are included within the production. Combined with the great

sounds of brass and percussion, the overriding effect is magnificent.

I would like to hear a show about water, and be able to hear the crash

of the waves interspersed with music.

I would love to hear the tremendous contribution available from a

conga drum.

Perhaps someday we might enjoy the sound of steel drums, and all

ethnic percussion, instruments that today are lost in the volume of

the acoustical performance, and the big open arena.

And on and on and on. Feel free to add – many creators within

the activity are looking for the opportunity to do more than I can

ever describe or envision.

Fiscal Responsibility

The expenditures a corps will make for amplification and electronic

percussion will vary. One should plan $5000 - $10,000 to get into the

game, and as the comfort level increases, add on equipment would be a

possibility.

The cost is related to the acquisition of capital items and should be

considered as an expense over 3-5 years based on depreciation

schedules. Does this make the initial outlay any easier? Well, that

depends on whether one was to use cash or finance the price tag.

Either way, there is a cost, but it is not extreme. The Cadets for

example, spend, $35,000 every three to four years to replace uniforms

(In the old days, every 10-15 years).

Remember now, the use of these technologies is not mandatory. Good is

god and bad is bad. All one has to do is witness a few band shows to

see this truth in action.

There is also the clear opportunity to share the cost with area bands.

Joint purchasing, rental, bartering, etc … It is all possible;

far more possible than some of the expenditures we make today -- like

filling four buses full of fuel.

Competitive Balance

I could answer with the reality-based response -- "No Worse Than

Today"

The Cavaliers, BD. SVC, and the Cadets hold to the top positions. The

Madison Scouts and Phantom although perhaps slipping a bit in

occasional years competitively remain as standard bearers in the

activity, the Crossmen, the Blucoats and the Colts, continue to hold

top 12 positions in most years and; overall, the balance of power is

remarkably the same. There are reasons for this -- indeed in drum

corps, we are not built for parity, but alas, this is a conversation

for another day.

The point

The inclusion of this equipment is not going to change the game in and

of itself. What it does is allow for people to use new ideas, to

project old and new sounds, and to look at the creation of a

coordinated program with a new eye; with additional possibilities.

Will good people use it well –- of course. Will those with a

poor show be able to save it through amplification -- good luck!

The Audience –- What will they think!!!!!!!

When looking at this question, we have to determine the audience of

yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Yesterday -- The Classic Audience of 1975 that continues to dominate

some of today’s conversation will not like this. These people

want drum corps the way they remember it and I am very appreciative of

this thought process. I too like drum corps as it was and is, but I am

also aware that something needs to change.

This addition would change that product. The problem in catering to

these people -- they are a diminishing group in terms of numbers.

Personally, I love them, I want to make them leap from their seats,

but for the sake of tomorrow, and we cannot use this class of people

only as the opinion makers for our performing groups.

RAMD will not care for this idea. Some Alumni will not care for this

idea.

Some fans will threaten their support and curse any action.

We need to move on in the face of vocal disagreement. It is our

responsibility to create a tomorrow for the kids who want to be a part

of this activity. We need to do what we believe to be right, we need

to hold to the values of creativity that made drum corps what it is

today. Equal shares of tradition and innovation, this is the key.

Today -- When we go to Texas we see the possibility. The 11,000 people

in the stands are predominantly students. They watch MTV, they listen

to Rock and Rap, they do not attend the opera, they read Seventeen,

and they look at drum corps, when we are at out best, as " Rock Stars

for Bands". We give credence to what THEY DO. We are indeed, a

personification of what is possible.

They love the excellence of drum corps. These kids love to see the

THROW DOWN; they want us to go fast and play loud, and to let them

have FUN.

None of this will change. The introverted pondering production will be

the same, and the jovial, fun; fast paced, crowd-pleasing extravaganza

will be that again -- just more so.

In my opinion, we need to recognize that kids are in the stands. They

grow up plugged in. We can show them it is not a bad thing. Not a bad

thing at all.

Tomorrow –- Our audience is declining. We have the facts.

This in mind, a reasonable evaluation would be that the young people

are not coming into the stands to replace those who depart for reasons

of their doing, and simply because they are called from this world.

There are 20,000 marching bands; there are 2 million young people in

marching bands; DCI needs to go after these young people as our

primary audience.

There is no question. Marching music is not going to be a mainstream

activity indeed we are moving more towards being a relic of a bygone

age.

As we reposition ourselves we need to be COOL. The more we can show

that MUSIC IS COOL, the better are our chances of being around, the

better is the opportunity to affect the ages, the greater is the

possibility for a revitalization of what we all hold as good within

the current activity --- excellence and excitement (sometimes).

Time Frame

By voting yes, we say yes to electronics and amplification beginning

with the summer of 2003.

Compromise

Coming from a guy who wanted the corps limit increased to 170 and

settled for 135 with joy, there is room for compromise. I have tried

to keep the breadth of the proposals controlled so as not to startle

anyone. Of course there is room for discussion as long as the final

product is of some value, some change, and some intrigue.

And in the end…

I would like to think that over time, those with the power to bring

DCI and the participating corps to greater heights, will consider that

the inclusion of instruments, electronics, and the amplification of

such is but a step in our evolution.

Many corps are the best, the absolute best in the world of marching

music. As such, we have the opportunity to affect tens and thousands

of young people per year. We are the models of greatness.

As I see it, that model should not be afraid of trying to do new

things. Instead, as the leaders we should be "reaching for the sky."

We should show all that the trait of a true winner includes learning

to adapt to the world, not being afraid of change, and indeed, making

decisions within the context of change that are good for the

individual.

The following paradox is worth examining:

What I am asking is that we all be allowed, some day, to do whatever

we think is best for our groups. If the purpose of the activity is

youth development, and the intention of the product is excellence and

entertainment, all I am asking for, is the chance for all to do this

in whatever form or fashion they find acceptable.

The other side of this argument is that we need to be "all-acoustic".

We cannot use this, and we cannot use this, and indeed, we must all be

the same, live with the same restrictions, and grow only in prescribed

ways.

Which position is the more radical?

Which the most confining?

Which celebrates the greatness of people, instructors, judges and

adults, and which looks to control us from our own bad ideas.

For many years the proposals I have presented have asked those with

power to allow for a greater degree of freedom .It has bee a tough

road to say the least. We are buried in our traditions and movement

comes ever so slowly. In the end, time and time again, we move on

because the values of what we offer are timeless. The instrument is

not the defining feature of the activity; it is but a tool.

These proposals will not return DCI to the glory days, if such a time

ever existed. But, together with a new look at marketing, a commitment

to growth and service to all youth, efficient operations, and more and

better leaders and teaching staff indeed we can make a significant

contribution to the world.

Please take a look at allowing those who would like an opportunity to

try a few things, the rights and freedom that seem reasonable. All

this is … is amplification and the use of electronic

instruments. Simple, easy, and very possible.

Respectfully submitted. George J. Hopkins

1/12/02

Show trimmed content

[N.E. Brigand]

Not a prob. It is not important. I just want to make sure we separate the proposal itself from the noise around it when making claims either way.

Some of that noise, whether here or elsewhere, was made by people who voted on the proposal, though. Just as a historian points to the Federalist Papers or to minutes of the debates in the state legislatures of 1787 to interpret the intent of the Constitution, we ought to feel free to look beyond the actual text of Hopkins's proposal, which by the 2002 version that skywhopper and Jeff Ream have cited seems to have been pro forma on his part anyway.

[N.E. Brigand]

Hop says it's not a gateway to electronic instruments. chuckle

He also says that the sound board will be run by members.

[skywhopper]

The fact is that Hop and whoever else supported amplification and electronics (and woodwinds, and 180 members, and on and on) tried every argument in the book to convince people. I'm sure potentially smaller pits were one approach, as was "proper" technique, and being "cool", and appealing to the kids, and bizarre stuff like being able to hear quiet pit solos over screaming brass features (how could that possibly sound good anyway?) or whatever. Anything and everything. Amplification is awesome and will solve lots of problems, but then there's DCI article about a preview of amplification techniques the directors went to in early 2004 and it quotes Hop saying "I've never used this, it's scary and new..."

Pretty much every year from the late 90s till 2004 and then 2009, Hop proposed raising the maximum age, expanding the number of members, adding woodwinds, adding amplification, adding electronics in every possible combination. He tried every argument possible as well until he got enough people convinced to "try" it (all of these proposals say it won't be mandatory, but how many corps don't use amps or synths?). The only reason the rule change proposals have stopped is because Hop decided to throw his weight behind the G7 proposal that came out in May 2010. He's given up on changing the rules bit by bit and is trying his hardest to just gain outright control (along with the six other corps)... I assume so that he can finally implement his "Music on the Move" proposal of 1997, which proposed a lot of the G7 stuff (a small permanent privileged class of corps who can put on shows with "no rules" and then relgating all other corps to basically feeder status). I assume the G7 proposal is what the other six corps were willing to support out of the 1997 MotM proposal. But if the G7 do succeed in taking over, expect there to be more fighting over woodwinds, 250 members, etc, etc.

[Tekneek]

Whether mandatory or not, it is effectively mandatory (just as we knew it would be). I strongly suspect a corps not making use of these will be told by judges to consider it and will lose competitively by refusing to do so.

[MikeD]

Some of that noise, whether here or elsewhere, was made by people who voted on the proposal, though. Just as a historian points to the Federalist Papers or to minutes of the debates in the state legislatures of 1787 to interpret the intent of the Constitution, we ought to feel free to look beyond the actual text of Hopkins's proposal, which by the 2002 version that skywhopper and Jeff Ream have cited seems to have been pro forma on his part anyway.

A LOT of the noise was posters on internet sites claiming all sorts of stuff, and then it got passed down as what the great and nebulous "THEY" said.

As for outside comments by those who did vote, if it wasn't part of the proposal it was just talk. Fine to talk about, but if it wasn't part of the proposal then people can't later claim that the proposal made all sorts of claims that it did not do.

[wvu80]

I want to return to being able to hear all musical elements in balance with each other. How terrible of me....

Oh, come on, TF; if you remember the "good ol days" (as I do) I hope you can be honest and we can both agree, "all musical elements" were NEVER in balance with each other.

IT IS TRUE that the old school pits had marvelous players who sounded great when they played when all the horns stopped playing, but there is NO old school pit which could be heard "in balance" with a top 10 DCI hornline when playing loud passages. No way.

[cixelsyd]

A LOT of the noise was posters on internet sites claiming all sorts of stuff, and then it got passed down as what the great and nebulous "THEY" said.

As for outside comments by those who did vote, if it wasn't part of the proposal it was just talk. Fine to talk about, but if it wasn't part of the proposal then people can't later claim that the proposal made all sorts of claims that it did not do.

You seem to forget that "the proposal" was not just a piece of paper, but also presentations given in person to instructor/judge caucuses and the BOD. What is said in those rooms is as much a part of "the proposal" as the written portion.

[drumcat]

Oh, come on, TF; if you remember the "good ol days" (as I do) I hope you can be honest and we can both agree, "all musical elements" were NEVER in balance with each other.

IT IS TRUE that the old school pits had marvelous players who sounded great when they played when all the horns stopped playing, but there is NO old school pit which could be heard "in balance" with a top 10 DCI hornline when playing loud passages. No way.

Can I ask a question from a naive point of view?

If you have 80 brass and 4 marimbas, in your opinion do you consider "balance" to be equal? I've always wondered this... in the WGI arena, the ensemble is supposed to be balanced such that the pit is as audible as the percussion as it relates to the ensemble sound.

If you go back to pre-amp pits in DCI, you had an expectation that kids played with some excess technique to max out overall amplitude *but* that's as loud as it gets. Just like a pair of cymbals, crashing them harder and yet harder is still going to produce a maximum amplitude.

Thus, what is the general consensus now? I was always of the understanding that in DCI and Marching world that pits didn't have to match the brass decibel for decibel. In fact, it would be strange to hear a marimba be as loud as a trumpet because the root characteristics of the instrument normally have a trumpet being inherently louder / more focused.

So by balanced, do you mean a reinforcement to allow players of barred instruments to play with good technique but match their historic counterparts in ratio, or is it that a keyboard part of 8 players should in fact equal 80 brass when both are jamming at ff?

My thought is that balance meant that brass could overpower pits at its highest volumes because it seemed natural, but now I've heard lots of WGI every-section-is-equal stuff. Can anyone expand on this nuance?

[NR_Ohiobando]

Oh, come on, TF; if you remember the "good ol days" (as I do) I hope you can be honest and we can both agree, "all musical elements" were NEVER in balance with each other.

IT IS TRUE that the old school pits had marvelous players who sounded great when they played when all the horns stopped playing, but there is NO old school pit which could be heard "in balance" with a top 10 DCI hornline when playing loud passages. No way.

Okay.

I'd be willing to say there is NO "new school" pit that actually plays in balance with the hornlines either. They wanted balance, but instead we've got a bunch of idiot designers with the same thought process as teenagers and disk jockeys: "TURN THE BASS UP. IT NEEDS TO BE UNNATURALLY LOUD. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S BURYING EVERYTHING ELSE, BASS IS GOOD.". You seem to imply there's balance. Thunderous Goo is not balance. You don't go to a string orchestra concert and see the basses being doubled by some useless idiot with a giant synthesizer because "WE NEED TO BALANCE THAT VOICE OUT WITH THE REST OF THE ENSEMBLE".