Brass instruments rule change 2014

[tesmusic]

Sustained low-frequency effects sound cool, and cannot be simulated by band instruments. But anything from low-mid-range on up from a spaced set of speakers creates the crappy sound associated with comb filtering from interference patterns between the two or more speakers.

If anyone is actually interested in "settled science," here you go:

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section5_4/Sec5_4.htm

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/comb-filtering

Electronics = bad sound. It's not exactly a news flash that young people have developed a taste for bad sound. But where are the adults, who should know better? Oh, right - standing at the mixer.

Obviously you don't own cd's, records, movies, etc. since those use electronics and amplification, right?

Or do these views simply go in for the marching arts?

Oh, in their original versions Kenton and Ellis used electronics and amplification, especially Ellis, which means that the original music the Scouts are using is not good in your opinion either, correct? I mean, that's me just using the logic you keep using.

[tesmusic]

Sustained low-frequency effects sound cool, and cannot be simulated by band instruments. But anything from low-mid-range on up from a spaced set of speakers creates the crappy sound associated with comb filtering from interference patterns between the two or more speakers.

If anyone is actually interested in "settled science," here you go:

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section5_4/Sec5_4.htm

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/comb-filtering

Electronics = bad sound. It's not exactly a news flash that young people have developed a taste for bad sound. But where are the adults, who should know better? Oh, right - standing at the mixer.

Obviously you don't own cd's, records, movies, etc. since those use electronics and amplification, right?

Or do these views simply go in for the marching arts?

Oh, in their original versions Kenton and Ellis used electronics and amplification, especially Ellis, which means that the original music the Scouts are using is not good in your opinion either, correct? I mean, that's me just using the logic you keep using.

[N.E. Brigand]

Sustained low-frequency effects sound cool

No they don't.

[drangin]

Obviously you don't own cd's, records, movies, etc. since those use electronics and amplification, right?

Go away.

Electronics have been used since 1925 to record commercial music. That's not what I'm talking about.

Edited June 26, 2014 by drangin

[drangin]

"Sustained low-frequency effects sound cool."

No they don't.

OK, but you asked me for my opinion on the difference between a good use of electronics and a bad use of it, that's all.

Edited June 26, 2014 by drangin

[N.E. Brigand]

Fair enough. De gustibus non est disputandum.

[perc2100]

I did think the point Mason made on the broadcast was a good one. Percussionists can use anything they want, yet year after year corps mostly march standard battery instrumentation because it works. Same story here: just because a trombone is legal doesn't mean that corps will use it always or often.

That said, the usage we've seen to date was pretty meh. The Cadets' french horn and Cavaliers' euphonium solos were well-played, but I don't think they've have been any less effective on a baritone or mellophone. A trombone can obviously do some things a baritone cannot, but I found the Scouts' use very underwhelming - it was short, buried in the texture, and didn't create much effect. It was kind of hard to understand why Mason made such a fuss about it.

I think it's plausible that design elements were already mostly in place before the rule passed officially. Maybe this year corps are testing the waters a bit, just trying out new ideas. It's funny, but IMO the change isn't really that big of a deal, and the fact that the change isn't making a ton of waves in practice reinforces to me that the change isn't a big deal. I think corps will continue to use trombone, concert F-horn, concert euphonium, etc. as interesting color or visual ideas. It's sort of an odd dichotomy: change because, "new stuff could lead to cool, new ideas," while at the same time the change is not fundamentally crazy different.

I guess to me this is sort of like changing from 128-135-150: a slightly noticeable change to those who are paying really close attention, but fundamentally not a huge deal.

[tesmusic]

Double post

Edited June 26, 2014 by tesmusic

[tesmusic]

Go away.

Electronics have been used since 1925 to record commercial music. That's not what I'm talking about.

First off, 1925 is not a concrete year in recorded sound. Meaning, you mention that year, and if we're going to be having this conversation, that is around the time it began being used, even though there are earlier examples.

Second, now you're going to get specific when you've been speaking in general terms and posting links outside the drum corps world.

Guess I'll "go away" since now the middle school argument tactics have come out.

Oh, and thanks again for making your argument by not answering yet another question of mine.

Was one of your 47 degrees in psychology?

Edited June 26, 2014 by tesmusic

[cixelsyd]

If anyone is actually interested in "settled science," here you go:

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section5_4/Sec5_4.htm

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/comb-filtering

Electronics = bad sound. It's not exactly a news flash that young people have developed a taste for bad sound. But where are the adults, who should know better? Oh, right - standing at the mixer.

Obviously you don't own cd's, records, movies, etc. since those use electronics and amplification, right?

Or do these views simply go in for the marching arts?

Which is worse - oversimplified one-line responses, or oversimplified one-line responses with a link to some technical information that no one will fully understand?

The articles lay out some of the limitations of loudspeakers. But rather than close the loop by explaining how those limitations apply to drum corps, drangin merely concludes that "electronics = bad sound". Obviously, that is not globally true. The real issue is that we start with an acoustic ensemble of 100 performers in diverse, changing locations, whose balance and blend achieves certain worthwhile effects... then we mic 10-20 of them and play an amplified, colored mix over a two-point speaker system. Yes, we sometimes see more elaborate systems with six speakers, but the coloration and downmixing effects are still unavoidable.

Meanwhile, tesmusic gives us a cute retort about CDs, records, and movies, neglecting to note that the live music experience is so much more compelling that people will pay significant ticket prices for it.