fsubone Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted October 13, 2014 Author Share Posted October 13, 2014 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) 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 October 13, 2014 by Eleran 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted October 13, 2014 Author Share Posted October 13, 2014 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 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. 1 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.