N.E. Brigand Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 And it is not solely about the three elements of the triad, but also how each of those elements is evaluated. Take "emotional" as an example. Back in the day, much of the emotional component of audience engagement was achieved by a style of brass performance that you simply do not hear in DCI today. The DCI award for high brass achievement is named after an arranger/instructor from that time whose slogan was "loud is good". Reflecting on that era, the stories of beloved hornline moments come from participants, fans, and yes, even judges. Obviously, tastes have changed in the judging community since then. The recipe for emotional engagement uses much more sonority and a bit less volume. No one dares utter the Jim Ott slogan in DCI circles. And when speaking of favorite brass moments, fans and judges are not selecting the same moments as often as BITD. Questions for anyone: should DCI rename the Ott award? Is loud still good? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Questions for anyone: should DCI rename the Ott award? Is loud still good? Yes, as seen at every show I've been to since 1964....and soft is good too...and everywhere in between. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Questions for anyone: should DCI rename the Ott award? Is loud still good? No, no need to change. I think Ott would have adapted 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Was soft undervalued in Ott's time? Was loud overvalued then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Was soft undervalued in Ott's time? Was loud overvalued then? I'd say yes to the second one. It seems like if you watch old shows, the only time the volume drops is where there is a solo or the horns aren't facing to the front. Dynamic contrast is a good thing, it makes the loads more impactful if there is a big contrast. It's the SCV '09 example. Most of the show was below forte, so when they hit the loud moments, it was a pretty big moment that had been lead into by long periods of soft playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'd say yes to the second one. It seems like if you watch old shows, the only time the volume drops is where there is a solo or the horns aren't facing to the front. How old are these "old shows" you have in mind? I know that there are some corps from the pre-DCI era who sounded like you describe. It is funny to hear one of those corps performing at a standstill or on stage - just straight, unending loud. By 1972, though, much had changed. Most successful corps were playing sustained soft passages frequently. MikeD, who just posted above, marched with Garfield Cadets in 1972, and they had long soft passages in every song of their show IIRC. Arranging had evolved quite a bit by then too, such that varying density of voices changed dynamics in ways that were not heard in simpler charts from earlier times. Dynamic contrast is a good thing, it makes the loads more impactful if there is a big contrast. I agree with you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 How old are these "old shows" you have in mind? 60s and 70s. Does seem like there is a marked shift in teaching around the mid-70s, when dynamics really came into play. But there are still parts where the only dynamic change comes from either facing the end zone, or a soloist coming in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 60s and 70s. Does seem like there is a marked shift in teaching around the mid-70s, when dynamics really came into play. But there are still parts where the only dynamic change comes from either facing the end zone, or a soloist coming in. I only played horn one year in Garfield, 3rd baritone in 1972 (I was a percussionist in college at the time), and I do tend to disagree with that. Don Angelica was our main horn instructor/arranger, and as a former band director he absolutely taught us with "standard" musical technique. Now, our horn line skill level was not "all that" as compared to the very top horn lines like Argonne, but we played with as much finesse as our skills allowed. Yes, there WERE corps that played with much less shaping and dynamic contrast, but if you listen to the top level corps of the day, they mostly did a decent job. In 71 (I played tri-toms) Frank Dorittie and Larry Schillings (a band director at the time), taught the horn line, and George Tuthill (a Manhattan School of Music grad) the drumline, and they too fostered a musical approach to how they taught us. So while our skill levels top-to-bottom were not the same as corps today, and the equipment was not up to today's standards, I don't really agree that at least the top corps were just playing either blastissimo or turned away to play quietly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) I only played horn one year in Garfield, 3rd baritone in 1972 (I was a percussionist in college at the time), and I do tend to disagree with that. Don Angelica was our main horn instructor/arranger, and as a former band director he absolutely taught us with "standard" musical technique. Now, our horn line skill level was not "all that" as compared to the very top horn lines like Argonne, but we played with as much finesse as our skills allowed. Yes, there WERE corps that played with much less shaping and dynamic contrast, but if you listen to the top level corps of the day, they mostly did a decent job. In 71 (I played tri-toms) Frank Dorittie and Larry Schillings (a band director at the time), taught the horn line, and George Tuthill (a Manhattan School of Music grad) the drumline, and they too fostered a musical approach to how they taught us. So while our skill levels top-to-bottom were not the same as corps today, and the equipment was not up to today's standards, I don't really agree that at least the top corps were just playing either blastissimo or turned away to play quietly. Can't see Frank D teaching "loud is good, louder is better". I can think of one or two Alumni type corps that play their standards from the 60s and guessing they are playing it in the same style from then. IMO too loud for the concert stage but their fans like it so guess it's what you are used to. To me it's not my taste almost as much as hearing electronics today. We had HS instructors when I joined and would catch hades if we lost the tone at any time. Yeah we were told to peel the paint at the end of the show but not if we would lose the tone. As for Jim Ott... "Let It Be Me" has great examples of soft and loud playing that works.... era late 70s... Edited February 25, 2014 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I can think of an even earlier example than Spirit of Ott's early genius- go listen to "My Way" from '73 Commodores. IIRC Ott arranged for that show. Anyway, I Did It My Way starts soft, then builds and builds.....but very unlike similar era corps, when you might expect it to build to blastissimo thru to the end, it softens again. Specifically...right at ..."the record shows, I took the blows, and did it My Way" they play it with a decrescendo. Very cool.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.