Pit Amplification Almost Worthless..You Decide

[charlie1223]

Even though strict acoustic leads to limitations in volume and certain techniques, to me it lead to being more creative in staging and the use of dynamics. In a way, allowing PA systems in drum corps is like allowing aluminum bats in the major leagues- sure, you can hit the ball farther and "better", but the art and authenticity of the achievement is watered down and in the end, diminished.

The problem with your analogy is that you think amplification supercharged the pit to something it was not originally intended (the aluminum bat). In reality amplification is the RETURN to the techniques, timbres and sounds that were always meant to be produced in percussion equipment. DCI didn't invent the marimba you know! Let a lone the addition of percussion instruments to brass or wind ensembles.

What was not authentic we're the un-mic'd outdoor pits of the past. What is more authentic and natural is the amplified version. Just because drum corps started out without amplifying the pit doesn't mean it was MEANT or SHOULD HAVE been that way. The way pits sound now now is what they always should have sounded from the beginning and the only reason it wasnt was because of a faulty appeal to "tradition" where there was no necessity or functionality towards it.

You are see the way marimbas/vibes etc are MEANT to be played and arranged... and you are seeing the way Front Ensembles were meant to be when they added it.

Edited August 21, 2013 by charlie1223

[funkjazzaxe]

The problem with your analogy is that you think amplification supercharged the pit to something it was not originally intended (the aluminum bat). In reality amplification is the RETURN to the techniques, timbres and sounds that were always meant to be produced in percussion equipment. DCI didn't invent the marimba you know! Let a lone the addition of percussion instruments to brass or wind ensembles.

What was not authentic we're the un-mic'd outdoor pits of the past. What is more authentic and natural is the amplified version. Just because drum corps started out without amplifying the pit doesn't mean it was MEANT or SHOULD HAVE been that way. The way pits sound now now is what they always should have sounded from the beginning and the only reason it wasnt was because of a faulty appeal to "tradition" where there was no necessity or functionality towards it.

You are see the way marimbas/vibes etc are MEANT to be played and arranged... and you are seeing the way Front Ensembles were meant to be when they added it.

You make a very good point- I agree to some extent. I guess my main point of contention with amplification of the pit is that is took a quick turn into amp'd brass, synths, etc. I prefer the simplicity and purity of an all acoustic drum corps, but I understand others see it differently for equally good reason.

[cixelsyd]

Here's what you said I'm not sure of your understanding of english language, but when you use qualifiers like "entirely" and "no" and "any" in regards to front ensemble performers individual musical responsibility, you are saying that they are playing with zero balance and blend.

No, he is not.

You know, when I first saw what skywhopper posted, I thought it was a wild overstatement fully deserving of the grief it would inevitably provoke. But the more I think about it, the more I realize he has a point. The instant we started putting those PA speakers out there, the whole game of ensemble balance changed dramatically. Regardless of what the performers do, the end result of their contribution is controlled by the mixing board. Therefore, the sound board operator is literally "responsible" for the final volume level.

Furthermore, another game changer with the speakers is that the musicians (specifically, the pit players) really cannot hear what their sound output is. Those speakers can be annoyingly loud in the direction they are aimed, but they project much less sound at a 90 degree angle, where the pit is. The difference is so dramatic that they become inaudible at that angle when there is enough other competing sound, like that of an audience (or 100 field musicians).

Even the location of the mixing board is at too poor an angle to gauge speaker sound output - which is why we see nearly every corps adjusting levels based on observations from in the stands. Either the sound board operator uses remote control and goes in the stands, or they communicate with another staffer in the stands via cell phone or walkie-talkie... much like the manner in which a rock band needs someone off stage to assess their sound checks.

What this all means, in practice, is that the modern front ensemble has to adjust their dynamics entirely based on prior verbal instructions from staff, learn it, rehearse it, and repeat it in the contest performance. Unlike the acoustic ensembles (pit included) of pre-2004 drum corps, the present day pit with their upfront speakers does not even have the option of adjusting their performance by ear as it happens. That is not the fault of the performers - it is a limitation of the design.

Pointing out this systemic flaw is not saying that pit performers are not musicians. Obviously, they are talented performers, and they have a full range of musical responsibilities. But it is sad to see that a major aspect of the overall result has been taken out of their hands.

[cixelsyd]

The problem with your analogy is that you think amplification supercharged the pit to something it was not originally intended (the aluminum bat).

Well, it has. The pit was "originally intended" to provide a place for corps to put down heavy percussion items they were already carrying on the field... not to add tons more, and certainly not to add non-percussion devices such as the synthesizer. Beyond that, we have already heard from other pit advocates who have said, in so many words, that amplification in their POV is intended to enable the pit to take on roles that it was not previously capable of (in their opinion, anyway).

By the way, grounded equipment was "not originally intended" in drum corps.

What was not authentic we're the un-mic'd outdoor pits of the past. What is more authentic and natural is the amplified version.

The spin in that statement is making me dizzy.

[scottgordon]

oh do they have FRONT ENSEMBLES? NO! Which is what that comment was referring to! Look back... it clearly says related to Front Ensembles... :doh:/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>

Yes of course you were referring to front ensembles. But since they are now a part of drumcorps, they shouldn't be assessed in a vaccuum... is this FEI ("Front Ensemble International")? No, it's drum and bugle corps. So when assessing the merits of any particular alteration of the form, it doesn't make sense to only look at those forms that have the alteration under consideration. Yes BOA has amplification, but not all similar outdoor marching forms do. By your logic, if we are going to consider expanding the use of woodwinds, we should only look to those forms that already have expanded woodwinds, and they say: "see, their woodwinds are better than ours, so we should do what they do."

You're using that argument on the wrong guy my friend... I am very much in favor of woodwinds because of the reason that "bands" DO use it.

Ok, well at least you are candid about it. So what then is drumcorps? And what is the purpose of having drumcorps if bands are better?

And yes, drum corps SHOULD be using amplification because drum corps should be the BEST at what they do. Not amplifying the pit literally makes it impossible for them to be the best at what they do and have it MEAN anything.

Again, that assesses the pit in a vaccuum. I am trying to assess decisions about the pit in relation to their effect on the drums and bugles that, in my mind, define the core of the activity.

Well, if you take everything I say out of context like you just did I'd be equally unswayed by any of my arguments... Are you seriously saying that you took my argument about how masterful the arrangements and techniques are of the pit and translated that into "WELL.. IF AMPLIFICATION MAKES PITS "SOUND AND LOOK GOOD" THEN ANYTHING THAT'S GOOD SHOULD BE ALLOWED! AND THAT'S BAD BECAUSE THEN LITERALLY ANYTHING THAT'S GOOD CAN BE IN DRUM CORPS! LIKE MY GRANDMAS REALLY GOOD APPLE PIE! AND A REALLY GOOD TRACK TEAM! AND REALLY GOOD PROFESSIONAL WOODWORKING! AND THAT'S NOT DRUM CORPS! SO I DON'T WANT PITS TO "LOOK OR SOUND GOOD" BECAUSE THAT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO ALLOWING EVERYTHING THAT'S GOOD... LITERALLY..." I mean... this is some kind of joke, right? :rock:/>/>/>/>/>/>

Stay calm, take a breath. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and I don't believe it is out of context at all. If the argument is simply "it sounds and looks good", then indeed that argument could be used to support any addition. What I'm trying to point out is that there is more at stake - the survival of an art form on the verge of being replaced by something else. Because that is exactly the argument used every time a change is proposed and implemented. At no point does anyone stop and assess what is uniquely compelling about drumcorps, and if any of it should be preserved -- even though there are other things in the world that are also good.

Do the words "READING COMPREHENSION" mean anything to you? :doh:/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> :doh:/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> :doh:/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>

I believe that I read your posts quite clearly, and was pointing out some implications of them.

The discussion might be friendlier if you didn't presuppose everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. There is no need to yell.

Edited August 21, 2013 by scottgordon

[corpsband]

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

Actually it *is* what you're arguing.

they have zero responsibility for the ultimate balance and blend. They can't control what's coming out of the PAs.

What' the FE is playing *is* what's coming out of the PAs. I really can't believe anyone thinks the soundboard is actively controlling the musical dynamics of every phrase. Just like every live musical performance in the world, the musician is making the music. The fact that mics are used to control the overall volume doesn't change the musicianship, dynamics, expression etc.. that's coming the instrument itself. MOST live music is mic's and amp'd -- even little coffeeshop performances are mic'd.

[corpsband]

You know, when I first saw what skywhopper posted, I thought it was a wild overstatement fully deserving of the grief it would inevitably provoke. But the more I think about it, the more I realize he has a point. The instant we started putting those PA speakers out there, the whole game of ensemble balance changed dramatically. Regardless of what the performers do, the end result of their contribution is controlled by the mixing board. Therefore, the sound board operator is literally "responsible" for the final volume level.

No. The soundboard operator is responsible for the available peak volume of the ensemble. The ensemble is still responsible for the final volume level. To me there's a world of difference between the two.

Furthermore, another game changer with the speakers is that the musicians (specifically, the pit players) really cannot hear what their sound output is.

Really? They can't hear what they're playing? Really?

If you were talking about the synth player -- that's true (thus the monitor speaker or headphones you see for those players).

But I'm pretty sure the rest of the front ensemble can still hear what they play

[perc2100]

By the way, grounded equipment was "not originally intended" in drum corps.

Neither were mellophones, baritones, contras, valved sopranos.

Or multi-toms and tonal bass drums.

Or asymmetrical drill, football fields, non-official flags.

Be careful when you use that argument, as if we are going back to what was originally intended we would go back to a bugle signal caller + a snare drummer giving commands to infantry soldiers

[perc2100]

No, he is not.

Yes, he is. Here is (again) his exact quote that I have been refuting as the gross overstatement that it is:

skywhopper, on 19 August 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

front ensemble members no longer have any responsibility for their volume, balance, or blend. That's (volume, balance or blend) entirely in the hands of the staffer running the mixer

And I (and others) are (again) stating that is patently false as the plethora of videos ALREADY POSTED IN THIS THREAD A FEW PAGES BACK demonstrate: front ensemble musicians are indeed maximizing balance, volume and blend (as well as awesome phrasing and dynamics: I know that's not a counter argument, but want to give props where it's due). Overall balance, blend and volume is NOT 100% from the hands of a mixer.

[perc2100]

No. The soundboard operator is responsible for the available peak volume of the ensemble. The ensemble is still responsible for the final volume level. To me there's a world of difference between the two.

Really? They can't hear what they're playing? Really?

If you were talking about the synth player -- that's true (thus the monitor speaker or headphones you see for those players).

But I'm pretty sure the rest of the front ensemble can still hear what they play

Reading some of these quotes, it's obvious that some folks are speaking about things they literally have NO IDEA. I know we're talking about internet forums and DCP where that is often the norm, but it's both frustrating and amusing to see some people speak so authoritatively when they literally have no clue (I'm speaking specifically about the

the musicians (specifically, the pit players) really cannot hear what their sound output is.

nonsense - if it wasn't such an idiotically ignorant statement it would be hilarious).