Jump to content

Most Impressive Low Brass Lines?


Recommended Posts

Crown 2012 or Coats 2010 were best in the last five years.

SCV 2004 was pretty phenomenal.

1990s- PR 1995 or 1996.

Funny how every discussion of low brass playing turns into jabs at synth players. Kind of forgets the contribution those 36-44 kids are making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crown 2012 or Coats 2010 were best in the last five years.

SCV 2004 was pretty phenomenal.

1990s- PR 1995 or 1996.

Funny how every discussion of low brass playing turns into jabs at synth players. Kind of forgets the contribution those 36-44 kids are making.

At this point I ignore them and remain silently thankful for the people who did reply to this topic without having to mention a synth. Thanks for all the suggestions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point I ignore them and remain silently thankful for the people who did reply to this topic without having to mention a synth. Thanks for all the suggestions!

Which top corps or great hornline/low brass section hasn't been aided by them?

Where is the great example of a low brass line from the past few years that has a pure sound on the field.

Just curious, because off the field there are good examples but where are they on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how every discussion of low brass playing turns into jabs at synth players. Kind of forgets the contribution those 36-44 kids are making.

So is having such little faith in the members sound that a synth fills out the chords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how every discussion of low brass playing turns into jabs at synth players. Kind of forgets the contribution those 36-44 kids are making.

Yes, perhaps it was petty of me to take the low-hanging fruit and make the synth joke.

But it is quite the contrary to your assertion that it forgets the 36-44 contributing low brass players. In fact, it is the exact opposite. My (and most likely others') aversion to the synth is specifically due to the impression (right or wrong is open to debate) that the the corps, by relying on synth bass, is the one telling the audience that those 36-44 players aren't good enough to make the musical impact they want the audience to hear. We (the anti-synth crowd if you like) are the ones that want to hear those 36-44 players on their own.

[PS - and I certainly don't need to say anymore on the subject. I'll refrain from commenting on synths, amplification, etc., for ... well, at least the rest of the month]

Edited by Eleran
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, perhaps it was petty of me to take the low-hanging fruit and make the synth joke.

But it is quite the contrary to your assertion that it forgets the 36-44 contributing low brass players. In fact, it is the exact opposite. My (and most likely others') aversion to the synth is specifically due to the impression (right or wrong is open to debate) that the the corps, by relying on synth bass, is the one telling the audience that those 36-44 players aren't good enough to make the musical impact they want the audience to hear. We (the anti-synth crowd if you like) are the ones that want to hear those 36-44 players on their own.

Careful now, Eleran. Facts aren't liked by all. Shame on you, and I of course for talking about this era based on instruments and uses.

Please tell me, should we not talk about the past 20 years of baseball because of steroids. I mean, that makes as much sense as leaving out synths in a brass sound discussion. Especially given the specifity of the 2009-present portion of the original topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recent (2000) plus brass lines have been somewhat lacking in power. LOW brass power. Thus we are forced to endure "enhanced" lower brass, which I totally despise.

No synths until 2009, so thankfully there was no enhancement before then.

And to my ears, it sounds like 2013-14 have less "thunderous goo" than the previous four years--which suggests to me that arrangers began to agree with complaints people had been making: a case of the artists being behind the audience?

Anyway, for 2010-14, I think the best tuba work comes from Bluecoats. The "worst" from a leading corps are Blue Devils: not because they're bad, but because for the most part, who can tell? They were hardly audible outside of the small ensemble in "Be Italian". But this is a narrower point than the question of low brass as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No synths until 2009, so thankfully there was no enhancement before then.

And to my ears, it sounds like 2013-14 have less "thunderous goo" than the previous four years--which suggests to me that arrangers began to agree with complaints people had been making: a case of the artists being behind the audience?

Anyway, for 2010-14, I think the best tuba work comes from Bluecoats. The "worst" from a leading corps are Blue Devils: not because they're bad, but because for the most part, who can tell? They were hardly audible outside of the small ensemble in "Be Italian". But this is a narrower point than the question of low brass as a whole.

I think the reason for the lack of a presence by the BD low brass has much more to do with arranging than with the quality or teaching of the section. BD's books are always very soprano heavy (much to my distaste sometimes; I complained quite a bit about the shrill opening fanfare this year, but I digress).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which top corps or great hornline/low brass section hasn't been aided by them?

Where is the great example of a low brass line from the past few years that has a pure sound on the field.

Just curious, because off the field there are good examples but where are they on the field.

Bluecoats have worked in some pretty spectacular tuba features in the last 5 years or so unaided by the synth. SCV had one last year and in 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, perhaps it was petty of me to take the low-hanging fruit and make the synth joke.

But it is quite the contrary to your assertion that it forgets the 36-44 contributing low brass players. In fact, it is the exact opposite. My (and most likely others') aversion to the synth is specifically due to the impression (right or wrong is open to debate) that the the corps, by relying on synth bass, is the one telling the audience that those 36-44 players aren't good enough to make the musical impact they want the audience to hear. We (the anti-synth crowd if you like) are the ones that want to hear those 36-44 players on their own.

[PS - and I certainly don't need to say anymore on the subject. I'll refrain from commenting on synths, amplification, etc., for ... well, at least the rest of the month]

Fair enough. I guess I'm just one of those people that doesn't hear the synth on top of parts unless I'm actively listening for it, or there's a part exclusively in the synth. Seems like the writers are getting better at burying that stuff underneath the brass lines, so it's not apparent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...