Edting DCI recordings

[shhmatt]

The performances are judged, so that should be reason enough to keep them as they are, right? to edit them after the fact seems contradictory to me to the critical nature of the activity,

The nature of the activity is to be viewed in person. The judges are not judging a video of the corps performance, they are judging the performance in person.

[ironlips]

I must admit to being impressed by the appearance of this eloquent turn of the phrase on this forum:

"...that would just be insane schadenfreude..."

And that really is the point. Perhaps a "real world" anecdote would add perspective.

A while back, I heard Rita Moreno sing with a trio at a local caberet. She appeared for 3 nights, two sets per evening, all of them recorded. I attended "finals".

At the performance in question , she began by saying, "I have a bit of a throat on this evening and may miss a note or two. It won't bother me. Don't let it bother you." She did have one little unintentional crack. When the recording was released, it wasn't there, and that is as it should be. It was an anomaly, not truly representative of Rita Moreno as an artist.

Those of us who witnessed the actual event will just have to store her miss in the audio of memory.

One wonders how many versions, revisions and edits exist of the Mona Lisa, Sunday in the Park, Finnegan's Wake, the Gospels of Matthew, War and Peace, and Saturday Night Live.

If you were there, you witnessed the event. A recording will never be able to replicate that. Reverb, compression, ambience, fades, equalization, sampling rate and a host of other technical travesties must be visited on any other mass-consumed mechanical version. It's just a ghost of the actual happening, an impression, an "editorial", like any other historical document. It reflects someone's POV.

And that, my learned colleagues, as Mr.Sondheim wrote, is the art of making art..."Putting it Together".

[perc2100]

I must admit to being impressed by the appearance of this eloquent turn of the phrase on this forum:

"...that would just be insane schadenfreude..."

And that really is the point. Perhaps a "real world" anecdote would add perspective.

A while back, I heard Rita Moreno sing with a trio at a local caberet. She appeared for 3 nights, two sets per evening, all of them recorded. I attended "finals".

At the performance in question , she began by saying, "I have a bit of a throat on this evening and may miss a note or two. It won't bother me. Don't let it bother you." She did have one little unintentional crack. When the recording was released, it wasn't there, and that is as it should be. It was an anomaly, not truly representative of Rita Moreno as an artist.

Those of us who witnessed the actual event will just have to store her miss in the audio of memory.

One wonders how many versions, revisions and edits exist of the Mona Lisa, Sunday in the Park, Finnegan's Wake, the Gospels of Matthew, War and Peace, and Saturday Night Live.

If you were there, you witnessed the event. A recording will never be able to replicate that. Reverb, compression, ambience, fades, equalization, sampling rate and a host of other technical travesties must be visited on any other mass-consumed mechanical version. It's just a ghost of the actual happening, an impression, an "editorial", like any other historical document. It reflects someone's POV.

And that, my learned colleagues, as Mr.Sondheim wrote, is the art of making art..."Putting it Together".

Exactly. Just as roughly 99% of every "life" CD or DVD sound from a mainstream music artist is 'fixed,' edited, or flat-out rerecorded, it's OK for DCI to do the same. That's the standard in the industry: to deliver the best possible product, not necessarily the most "true" product. No one wants to release/sell an inferior product, and it seems silly for customers to prefer an inferior product rather than a superior, 'cleaner' edited product.

[perc2100]

It is inherently dishonest to do this, and I think the mistakes should just stay. They've been doing this for years because they can and I'm sure it doesn't come without a corps director's approval or request. What random luck should that crown ballad incident show up on the multicam? It doesn't matter, it's not very nice to keep it in there, especially had they gotten 2nd, but it still happened and is on the high cam, they just don't do the close up like it was. Why was nearly every solo botched in some way for BD? Who knows, but it could have contributed to their placement and music scores, So why remove it? The exception would be Crown's 2010 incident where the kid was injured at some point in the show, OF COURSE edit that out, whatever happened there it's not his or her fault (maybe the corps' fault) and that would just be insane schadenfreude to keep it in.

The performances are judged, so that should be reason enough to keep them as they are, right? to edit them after the fact seems contradictory to me to the critical nature of the activity, and I feel like they do this so that no one's feelings get hurt. Maybe it's about the kids in the end? But it's dishonest and maybe even ultimately doing them a disservice.

I think, then, the question is, "why produce the DVD's/Blu-rays & CD's," as well as "why purchase/watch the DVD's/Blu-rays & CD's?"

I wonder if more people buy those products because they like the shows & want to see them again and again vs buy them to scour frame-by-frame and phrase-by-phrase to analyze if the judges "got it right" or some-such reason.

I personally have always bought DCI products because I liked the shows & wanted to watch them repeatedly. I'd prefer that product to be the best representation of the show & performance ability vs a 'warts & all' representation of ticks.

[Stu]

I must admit to being impressed by the appearance of this eloquent turn of the phrase on this forum:

"...that would just be insane schadenfreude..."

And that really is the point. Perhaps a "real world" anecdote would add perspective.

A while back, I heard Rita Moreno sing with a trio at a local caberet. She appeared for 3 nights, two sets per evening, all of them recorded. I attended "finals".

At the performance in question , she began by saying, "I have a bit of a throat on this evening and may miss a note or two. It won't bother me. Don't let it bother you." She did have one little unintentional crack. When the recording was released, it wasn't there, and that is as it should be. It was an anomaly, not truly representative of Rita Moreno as an artist.

Those of us who witnessed the actual event will just have to store her miss in the audio of memory.

One wonders how many versions, revisions and edits exist of the Mona Lisa, Sunday in the Park, Finnegan's Wake, the Gospels of Matthew, War and Peace, and Saturday Night Live.

If you were there, you witnessed the event. A recording will never be able to replicate that. Reverb, compression, ambience, fades, equalization, sampling rate and a host of other technical travesties must be visited on any other mass-consumed mechanical version. It's just a ghost of the actual happening, an impression, an "editorial", like any other historical document. It reflects someone's POV.

And that, my learned colleagues, as Mr.Sondheim wrote, is the art of making art..."Putting it Together".

Please note that I completely agree with you in your posting; I prefer a solid performance recording for my continued enjoyment beyond being there live That said, the dilemma we apparently having within opinions of DCI video/audio recordings is that DCI is, by definition, a 'competitive' activity as well as an 'artistic' activity. Thus the question arises: Is there, for lack of a better word, a responsibility for DCI to preserve and sell an audio/video recording which reflects the actual competitive performance achieved on Finals night?

[drumcorpsfever]

You've really hit one of my pet peeves about the DCI recordings! Yes, performances are sometimes edited. Yes, the solos for BD have been doctored (with absolutely no references on the recording for historical purposes and understanding).

Overall, I don't have a problem with editing - as long as the original version is preserved (for historical and purest purposes). In fact, I would enjoy knowing what's been edited.

Also, DCI - or the recording editor - picks and chooses which performances they choose to edit.

Why, for example, is the soloist edited on BD, but not for the Bluecoats performance?

I'd suggest that if you do it for one on the finalist recordings, then you should do it for all - if possible.

This isn't anything new. Check out the 2012 Finals bluray for Crown. The soloist in the Fanfare for the Common Man was doctored.

While we're on the subject, when is DCI going to start offering video downloads?

[Slingerland]

Feh. Many Broadway cast albums use arrangements of the music from that show that aren't exactly like what you see on stage, and they've been doing it that way for 50 years (intersticed dialogue sequences might be missing or moved, the scoring is modified to allow for larger orchestras, etc). Western civilization has managed to survive.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Slingerland

[N.E. Brigand]

I am certainly pleased that my 1989 CD features the Blue Devils soloist at his best. Who would listen to their track more than once, if that painful moment were retained?

On the other hand: ten years from now, when you're telling a friend, say, about Boston Crusaders' 2013 show and their use of prerecorded poetry adapted from Maya Angelou, should your friend trust your memory or the video he sees on the Fan Network, where that voiceover material has been cut?

[84BDsop]

1983 SCV was not the finals recording...at least the very end wasn't (the chimes at the end were different)

[CUDAKITE]

Personally, I want the best possible representation of the year's shows on my Blu-rays. I appreciate the work that is put in to deliver that.