Pit Amplification Almost Worthless..You Decide

[scottgordon]

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.

Again, to be fair, this is done in other settings as well, and is generally refered to as "sound reinforcement". Big bands often use it (Kenton band would mic solos, certain instruments, and sometimes sections depending on the venue, but not the whole band). This past summer when I was in Prague, I went to the famous state opera house there and saw Tosca. I am pretty certain that there was some sound reinforcement going on, in the form of small mics on the stage picking up the actors' singing. It was driving me nuts because it was causing strange phasing of the apparent position of the performer(s) as they moved across the stage... the sound would drift from their mouth to one side of the stage or the other (where the speakers were) as they moved closer to, and then further from, the stage mics. I thought the performance would have been improved without sound reinforcement in that case, and I feel the same about drumcorps (for many of the reasons you have cited).

[charlie1223]

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

Where do you think it has happened and continues to happen?

[scottgordon]

Where do you think it has happened and continues to happen?

In drumcorps - where the introduction of amplification in pits indeed started the activity quickly down a slippery slope of all ranges of uses of electronics, including staff participation and manipulation in real time and the ever-expanding cornucopia of instruments, amplified or otherwise. Let me try to walk through it slowly...

The question of whether amplified pits "sound better" is not one of fact, but one of opinion. To you, it is so obviously better that only a deluded idiot could believe otherwise. But after hearing many years of both forms of drumcorps, I do believe otherwise -- while it may make certain aspects of one part of the corps sound better on its own, and I could understand some people prefering it, my opinion is that it has hurt the overall sound and impact of corps. And to me (like you) it is so obvious that I can't believe more people don't share my opinion. But both sides are just that - opinion - and your opinion has won out and is now pretty much the only version of corps that exists. So you have no reason to be angry and every reason to rejoice. It makes me sad, not mad. The OP asked our opinions - that is mine.

However, what isn't a matter of opinion, is that the introduction of electronic amplification of the pit changed the fundamental nature of drumcorps quite drastically. To the point that, there really can no longer be any reasoned opposition to transforming the activity completely to one of marching bands and any instruments desired. I can't think of any. Without amplification, there was always the consideration of what instruments are optimal for a football field. With amplification, that distinction disappears - if it makes a sound, it must be able to be heard. And it is hardly farcical, because the transformation to bands clearly is in progress and happening rapidly, and that too makes me sad because I don't consider marching bands to be a suitable replacement for the greatest outdoor acoustic sound on earth. With all due respect to the pipes, and the rebel yell.

[corpsband]

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.

You said "they can't adjust the performance by ear". I have no idea how to interpret that in any other fashion but "they can't hear what they're playing". This is obviously the implication. And it's completely false.

Again -- directly above -- the performer apparently can't hear themselves to adjust their dynamic level. You keep saying that's not what you mean but then you keep repeating the same comment.

Honestly I'm out -- there's just no point in continuing this.

[cixelsyd]

You said "they can't adjust the performance by ear".

I did not say that either.

This is the second time you have misquoted me. This time, you posted my actual quote, and then made up your own twisted interpretation of it and put it in quotation marks, right underneath what I actually posted.

I have no idea how to interpret that in any other fashion but "they can't hear what they're playing". This is obviously the implication. And it's completely false.

Again -- directly above -- the performer apparently can't hear themselves to adjust their dynamic level. You keep saying that's not what you mean but then you keep repeating the same comment.

Stop interpreting, and just read.

Here is the simple version. Pit players can hear what they play. But they cannot necessarily hear what the speakers are playing.

Is that really so hard to grasp?

Moving on... it has been my observation (along with others) that sound board operators adjust volume levels during performances. Many stay at the board throughout the performance, while some work via remote control, using a mobile device with an application that allows them to move various channel faders or the overall mix level up/down whenever they desire. I believe there are also a few corps who make adjustments pre-show, then leave the mixing board alone during the show (or maybe I just failed to notice which of their staffers had the iPad).

Now, obviously, there are an assortment of tasks for the sound board operator to perform. Some play pre-show audio. Some corps amplify vocal or brass performers, and need the mic channels for those functions muted when not in use. Some corps are applying effects (reverb, for example) at specific times, and need those switched on/off. Maybe some sound board operators restrict their activity to those functions - if you have specific knowledge of any such corps, feel free to share. But I have seen a number of sound board operators with different corps moving faders up and down frequently during performances - both individual channel faders and the master fader. They are clearly taking responsibility for the volume, balance and blend of the pit within the ensemble.

This should not surprise anyone, because in the A&E era, the only corps personnel who can properly assess ensemble balance during the performance are the staff who can get far enough in front of the speakers. This is a completely different ballgame from the all-acoustic era, when the performers could all hear each other. We now have several additional "performers" who cannot be adequately heard by the other performers. And for many corps, those "performers" include not just the electronic instrumentalists (synth, EWI, etc.), but the sound board operator as well.

Honestly I'm out -- there's just no point in continuing this.

Yes - there is no point in continually twisting my words.

[Michael Boo]

But there ARE other outdoor musical pageantry competitions that don't use amplification, such as pipes and drums.

...

Bagpipes are by their nature able to pierce through lead...and my cranium.