Pit Amplification Almost Worthless..You Decide

[Hawkeye]

I don't understand amping brass much at all (unless you add some kind of weird FX stuff to a solo or something, I think I've heard this before) But when the pits playing quiet it can become a bit easier to hear them. You'd probably be fine without it the majority of the time though, idk... Depends on your music writing too.

[corpsband]

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

Right there with you. DCP shining its thousand points of light again :-)

[scottgordon]

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

He never said they can't hear what they're playing. He said they can't hear their "final sound output". For many corps, that is true because the speakers are in front of them and pointed away from them. This is also true for many other musical genres - rock bands rely on sound checks before the performance, and a good mixing board operator to ensure that the sound is balanced in the audience. Nobody said they can't hear what they are playing.

[corpsband]

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.

He never said they can't hear what they're playing. He said they can't hear their "final sound output". For many corps, that is true because the speakers are in front of them and pointed away from them. This is also true for many other musical genres - rock bands rely on sound checks before the performance, and a good mixing board operator to ensure that the sound is balanced in the audience. Nobody said they can't hear

what they are playing.

No that's clearly not what he meant. Read the embedded quote. He's talking about performing in a space where they can't hear what they're playing.

(and fwiw rock bands depend on their monitor (in ear or otherwise to hear what they're playing))

and further down the rabbit hole we go.

[cixelsyd]

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.

I was going to assume that the meaning of the word "responsibility" was generally understood. My mistake.

No one is saying that the pit performers do not employ dynamics or control of their own. However, the final result is different. We also have microphones picking up the sound of various pit instruments at volume level X, transmitting it to a mixing board where a gain is applied under the control (and frequent manipulation) of a sound board operator, and then output through speakers at resulting volume level Y. Total pit sound is now a combination of X and Y.

Continuing this train of thought also addresses your next interjection...

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

You know I never said they cannot hear what they are playing. I said they cannot hear the sound output (the end result combination of acoustic and electronic contributions), because they cannot the speaker output well from their location, perhaps not at all at times. That is quite a handicap for music with the wide dynamic range that drum corps contains. Without that ability, the pit performers simply cannot know if their sound output is too little or too great. The responsibility for making that assessment, and making adjustments if called for, lies with the sound board operator.

[funkjazzaxe]

To my knowledge, there is merit in the comment that the pit isn't hearing the FOH as it sounds to the fans- they aren't. I haven't noticed stage monitors or in-ear cans being used, save for the synth players. The FOH output through the PA is being controlled by someone on a board, probably in the stands on an ipad if they are remotely with the times. I guess you could counter argue that nobody is actually hearing what the fans are hearing since the staging is all over the place, not just the amp'd pit. True, this is how its done in most live music settings (amps/mics), but there are certain things that are hard to get right when only a small % of the ensemble is piped through the PA, and the rest are acoustic. Add the fact that most corps are wetting the amp'd performers down (compression, reverb, delay in many cases) coupled with the dry field percussion/brass and it can make for a disconnected sounding final result. Unless everyone is coming through the PA and stage sound, or in this case field sound, is isolated and the audience is only getting FOH mix, it leads to inconsistency and an unnatural final mix hitting the audience's ears. Mics/amps lead to a "synthetic" drum corps sound, my opinion of course. And my opinion comes from working full time as a performing/touring musician (guitar)- I live/eat/sleep amps and electronic tech- but feel it absolutley ruins the sound and purity of drum and bugle corp! My opinion, of course!

Edited August 21, 2013 by funkjazzaxe

[charlie1223]

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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

Your position is unbelievably farcical that is impossible to take seriously. that making pits look and sound good is a slippery slope to adding anything that "looks and sounds good"... It makes no sense what-so-ever.

Edited August 21, 2013 by charlie1223

[funkjazzaxe]

Your position is unbelievably farcicle that is impossible to take seriously. that making pits look and sound good is a slippery slope to adding anything that "looks and sounds good"... It makes no sense what-so-ever.

Well, I agree that it was a slippery slope that paved the very quick path to mic'd brass, synths, etc. Now amps are being used not just to support the more subtle instruments like mallets and handdrums, but synths are actually becoming part of the brass ensemble and they are using racks of poweramps to add volume and impact to what used to be an all human powered, acoustic experience. We're not far from mic'd woodwinds, guitars, etc in the pit. Really, since we can sequence and use those "voices" as synth patches, what's the difference anymore. Mic'ing the pit brought in amplification and using machines to generate musical power rather than just hands and lungs. This was an enormous fundamental shift in the activity, brought about by amplifying the pit.

[scottgordon]

No that's clearly not what he meant. Read the embedded quote. He's talking about performing in a space where they can't hear what they're playing.

(and fwiw rock bands depend on their monitor (in ear or otherwise to hear what they're playing))

and further down the rabbit hole we go.

Rabbit hole crack notwithstanding, the purpose of in-ear monitors in rock bands is NOT so that the performers can hear the actual performance mix, but so that they can hear what they need to hear in order to perform. Often, each performer gets a separate unique mix, sometimes under their own control. But it is rarely if ever the ultimate mix heard in the stands.

And despite how you interpret the words, I don't think that he meant that performers can't hear themselves, or that they can't hear the people around them. That would be ridiculous. It was clear to me that he meant they can't hear the final blend. Now, to be fair, that was to a great degree impossible in the acoustic days too, since horns are often blowing over and alongside the pit performers. But today the final mix of the pit - as far as what is heard through the speakers - is done largely on the mixing board. If that weren't the case, why would staff consider it so important that they need control over it themselves?

[scottgordon]

Your position is unbelievably farcicle that is impossible to take seriously. that making pits look and sound good is a slippery slope to adding anything that "looks and sounds good"... It makes no sense what-so-ever.

How can you refer to it as "farcicle" [sic], when that is exactly what has happened and continues to happen?