Pit Amplification Almost Worthless..You Decide

[charlie1223]

I agree. Marimbas and vibes were used for decades, presumably with some perceived value for the corps and the judges. They could certainly be heard. Check out Cadets 91 opener and see if you can hear the pit amid the FFF brass. Why yes, you can...

Related to this point is that the front ensemble members no longer have any responsibility for their volume, balance, or blend. That's entirely in the hands of the staffer running the mixer. The players can change their tone, and can impact the volume, assuming the mix is not being touched by the sound guys, but in reality, the sound guys are tweaking the mix constantly throughout the show, and can "correct" individual players or sections who are failing to achieve the right volume levels. (They could also theoretically mute performers who are not cutting it in terms of hitting the right notes.)

And on that 91 recording where exactly were the microphones placed? Right on the front sideline.

[drumcat]

Fair points all to the prior posts...

I would point out that the hitting of keyboard bars getting amplified bothers few people. As was noted the use of two ginormous amps screws with the audio-spacial relationship in a live environment... I would still go back to BD 2004; each keyboard had its own singular amp. I thought that was by far the most modest, appropriate amplification system used in DCI, and was the only one that did preserve spacial integrity.

It's an interesting discussion, but I'd bring it back to the main difference. I think we can all geek out about the intricacies of bar volumes. It's the sounds with considerable overtones that are the most disruptive. That's for 8,000 other threads.

At least in this thread, I think it's fair to say that the thesis of almost worthless isn't deserved.

If you want a good example of non-amped pits being mixed in the ensemble, listen to the closer in La Mer; SCV 1996. You'll have no doubt that a pit can be in that loud orchestration and hold its own. What might be considered jarring is that for 20+ years, a generation of fans heard acoustic instrumentation balanced by brute force; harsh playing and hard mallets. We get to amplification, and just when we start settling in to setups that don't crap out during performances, and kids are beginning to back off a little bit, more things started to get shoved through the system.

Some might say that PART of amplification is worthless. Some might say we like goo. Pretty clear how I feel about augmenting brass... but when it comes to traditional pit amplification - it works. What is tasty (equal or diminished) can be debated for a long time. Generating sounds through samples and electronic instrument patches... well, let's just leave it at this particular thread thesis is debunked.

[JamMan]

I decide?

Okay.

Pit amplification is not over the top and also does not in itself take away from any show. Its up to arrangers to create the proper balance for pit and brass and battery. Prior to amplification it was quite hard to do so without banging the crap out of the front ensemble.

And it itself is really not too loud. Unless you are standing 2 feet from the speaker and putting your ear to it... its not too loud. At finals i enjoy sitting as close to the field as possible to just get the amazing in your face drum corps experience. And not once has the pit been too in my face. You can hear it more than sitting far away, but you can hear the subtleties a bit more.

Sitting up front the biggest issue to me is hearing the guard. Of all things.

As a fan i have no problem with amps. And it allows the designers to do a lot more with a lot more things.

It's really just the brass alums who whine. They want to hear brass and nothing but brass. They even get crabby when a drum feature doesn't feature the brass or the brassline only plays for 85% of the show (remember that Cavaliers "controversy" from 2007?).

Yes it is almost worthless. Let's just return to that gorgeous all acoustic sound of yesteryear. Nothing rinky dink about it. The fact that this conversation rolls on after all of these years does not surprise me at all. The use of amps ruined the enjoyment of brass in the number one show this year. Let them play I say and save your talking for your printed program.

Sarcasm?

"Let's just return to that gorgeous all acoustic sound of yesteryear."

It wasn't gorgeous at all.

"Nothing rinky dink about it."

False.

"The use of amps ruined the enjoyment of brass in the number one show this year."

Implying the brass is the only thing that matters?

"Let them play I say and save your talking for your printed program."

Amen.

[perc2100]

Related to this point is that the front ensemble members no longer have any responsibility for their volume, balance, or blend. That's entirely in the hands of the staffer running the mixer. The players can change their tone, and can impact the volume, assuming the mix is not being touched by the sound guys, but in reality, the sound guys are tweaking the mix constantly throughout the show, and can "correct" individual players or sections who are failing to achieve the right volume levels. (They could also theoretically mute performers who are not cutting it in terms of hitting the right notes.)

This is flat out ignorance to imply that front ensemble musicians have zero control or ability to play with musical phrasing & dynamics. It's so ignorant & naive that it 100% invalidates your argument. Not only that, but your naive argument invalidates itself: you say

That's (volume, balance or blend) entirely in the hands of the staffer running the mixer

and then immediately follow that argument with

sound guys are tweaking the mix constantly throughout the show, and can "correct" individual players or sections who are failing to achieve the right volume levels. (They could also theoretically mute performers who are not cutting it in terms of hitting the right notes.)

So if 100% of balance, blend and volume of the front ensemble is controlled by staff members why is there a need to "correct" players or even flat out mute them?

[perc2100]

I agree. Marimbas and vibes were used for decades, presumably with some perceived value for the corps and the judges. They could certainly be heard. Check out Cadets 91 opener and see if you can hear the pit amid the FFF brass. Why yes, you can...

Just because something was done in the past doesn't mean there is a better way to do something in the future. With this argument, why change drill to asymmetrical? Why have choreography? Why add valves to horns? Why ground front ensemble equipment? Why allow females into drum corps? It's a fallacious argument, has little/no merit

[corpsband]

I agree. Marimbas and vibes were used for decades, presumably with some perceived value for the corps and the judges. They could certainly be heard. Check out Cadets 91 opener and see if you can hear the pit amid the FFF brass. Why yes, you can...

Related to this point is that the front ensemble members no longer have any responsibility for their volume, balance, or blend. That's entirely in the hands of the staffer running the mixer. The players can change their tone, and can impact the volume, assuming the mix is not being touched by the sound guys, but in reality, the sound guys are tweaking the mix constantly throughout the show, and can "correct" individual players or sections who are failing to achieve the right volume levels. (They could also theoretically mute performers who are not cutting it in terms of hitting the right notes.)

This is flat out ignorance to imply that front ensemble musicians have zero control or ability to play with musical phrasing & dynamics. It's so ignorant & naive that it 100% invalidates your argument. Not only that, but your naive argument invalidates itself: you say and then immediately follow that argument with

So if 100% of balance, blend and volume of the front ensemble is controlled by staff members why is there a need to "correct" players or even flat out mute them?

Agree 100% . This is pretty insulting to every FE in DCI today. Guess they just bang on the bars and the "sound guy" makes everything sound perfect.

It's a bad as saying a keyboard player is not a musician -- they're just pressing buttons after all. The synth does all of the work.

Take it to it's logical conclusion -- piano players are just hacks. They press buttons and mechanical hammers strike of bunch of pre-tuned strings -- where's the skill in that?

[perc2100]

At least in this thread, I think it's fair to say that the thesis of almost worthless isn't deserved.

If you want a good example of non-amped pits being mixed in the ensemble, listen to the closer in La Mer; SCV 1996. You'll have no doubt that a pit can be in that loud orchestration and hold its own. What might be considered jarring is that for 20+ years, a generation of fans heard acoustic instrumentation balanced by brute force; harsh playing and hard mallets. We get to amplification, and just when we start settling in to setups that don't crap out during performances, and kids are beginning to back off a little bit, more things started to get shoved through the system.

Some might say that PART of amplification is worthless. Some might say we like goo. Pretty clear how I feel about augmenting brass... but when it comes to traditional pit amplification - it works. What is tasty (equal or diminished) can be debated for a long time. Generating sounds through samples and electronic instrument patches... well, let's just leave it at this particular thread thesis is debunked.

I agree with all of this: as always there is no absolute right or wrong. When done well audience is able to hear all aspects of subtle, rich front ensemble arranging, arrangers can arrange stylistically anyway they want & not fear musical voices get lost, we get to hear actual rosewood bars & beautiful characteristic sound instead of synthetic bars that sound pretty brittle-sounding in comparison. Members get to utilize legit concert technique with a myriad of mallet choices that best compliment the ensemble sound as opposed to overplaying with super hard mallets in order to be heard. Voices that often got lost in the mix (like many smaller aux. instruments & parts) can now be heard w/no problems. When done well, front ensemble amplification is literally the opposite of rendering the section "almost worthless.

Arguing about appropriateness of synths, mic'ed human voices & brass solos is another discussion, and one that is moot: you either accept it or you don't. It's personal preference and bickering about that is futile.

I honestly think that front ensembles are amplified in such a way that generally we (audience) can hear just about EVERYTHING, and some people are still not used to, or appreciate that. What was once something that had to be programmed around. If mallet parts were supportive of brass melody phrases it was difficult to hear them BITD compared to now & mallets were heard well during features and integral phrases because of design; now you can hear even subtle stuff loud and clear and I honestly think some people just flat out to care to hear the front ensemble at all times.

I think of it like brass arranging: trumpets might have the melody, tubas have low end support, baris and mellos might have counter melodies or harmonies or chordal support. Even though a baritone part is playing stuff I might consider "boring" it is still loud and clear within the ensemble. This is no different from the front ensemble contribution, only the instruments' volume is augmented via speakers because those instruments are not really designed to cut through a large brass line. This is no different than percussion sections playing with a symphony in an outdoor venue: heck, look at those pics from this past weekend at the Hollywood Bowl. There are a TON of mics back in the percussion section so those integral parts can be heard by the crowd spread out in a large outdoor venue. There's nothing wrong with mic'ing the percussion in that venue, and there is also nothing wrong with amplifying front ensemble sections of drum corps

[skywhopper]

This is flat out ignorance to imply that front ensemble musicians have zero control or ability to play with musical phrasing & dynamics.

I didn't say it removes the individual players' ability to play dynamically. But the sound that comes out of the PAs that the audience hears is not in the individual player's control. So, regardless of their abilities, they no longer ultimately have responsibility for the balance with the rest of the ensemble. In other words, a big part of the Music Analysis score is judging the performance of staff members, not marching members.

So if 100% of balance, blend and volume of the front ensemble is controlled by staff members why is there a need to "correct" players or even flat out mute them?

That's two descriptions of the same argument. I guess I'm confused about what you think is contradictory in that. The sound person/people on the mixer controls the volume and mix, and adjusts it during the performance. If the performers are failing to achieve the dynamics appropriately, the sound person can alter the player's performance. I've literally seen and heard this happen.

[skywhopper]

Just because something was done in the past doesn't mean there is a better way to do something in the future. With this argument, why change drill to asymmetrical? Why have choreography? Why add valves to horns? Why ground front ensemble equipment? Why allow females into drum corps? It's a fallacious argument, has little/no merit

The argument I'm hearing from some folks (don't remember if you've made the argument in this manner) is that the pit couldn't be heard prior to amplification, that marimbas and vibes in particular are too soft to be heard. But why were they used for 20+ years in the pit if they couldn't be heard? All I was doing in that statement was pointing out that, clearly they could be heard and had some value, so the folks saying that amplification was necessary because the poor marimba players were never being heard are wrong.

[skywhopper]

Agree 100% . This is pretty insulting to every FE in DCI today. Guess they just bang on the bars and the "sound guy" makes everything sound perfect.

Obviously that's not my argument, CB. Seriously, why would you respond this way?