Trombones 2016

[Rocketman]

So, what I hear is (again not my point), Bb instruments Vs todays bugles are better. Fine. Then answer this, have their been any arrangements played on todays Bb instruments that could not have been played on todays bugles? Bugles were/are louder and intonation issues are not restricted to them. Intonation can also be part of training.

[MikeD]

So, what I hear is (again not my point), Bb instruments Vs todays bugles are better. Fine. Then answer this, have their been any arrangements played on todays Bb instruments that could not have been played on todays bugles? Bugles were/are louder and intonation issues are not restricted to them. Intonation can also be part of training.

Could they have played the notes on a 3-valve horn in G that they do on a Bb/F set of horns? Sure, in a different key, of cours.. As to louder...there is more to making music than 'loud'...I would hardly make that my be-all and end-all of making instrument decisions. Plus, as noted there are other aspects of the discussion that color the idea that horn lines in G would automatically be louder than those in multi-key today.Even if one accepts the idea that the same amount of air going through a G horn creates a somewhat louder sound than that air going through a Bb/F horn, who is to say that the desired volume levels by the staff want that sound?

As to better...IMO whenever you can turn over a set of horns on a regular basis and get new set of up-to-date horns it is a good thing for the horn line. With Bb/F you have a huge after-market to sell the old horns to in HS and College MB, while the market for "slightly used" G horns is nil.

[BRASSO]

So, what I hear is (again not my point), Bb instruments Vs todays bugles are better. Fine. Then answer this, have their been any arrangements played on todays Bb instruments that could not have been played on todays bugles?

If Corps wanted Mfg, of brass instruments to make for them brass instruments in the key of G, todays technology would not only allow these Mfg's to do so, the quality of the G's would naturally be of far better quality than that of earlier generations of the production of the G's. The tubing could absolutely be provided to accommodate the music corps play today, imo. Don't take my word for it.... ask any of the Mfg's themselves if the current technology is now available to do so. They will tell us...... " yes ".

However, lets bear in mind what has driven these decisions. DCI corps increasingly utilize conventional marching band instrumentation because it allows these Corps better access to that scholastic marching band community's personnel. Since the adoption of DCI in the 70's, it has been the indisputable stated objective of DCI to align itself with the scholastic marching band community. For all intents and purposes, that 40 year quest has been successfully attained. Thus, the fact that these DCI musical units have the increasing appearance of scholastic marching bands, with the conventional marching band instrumentation utilization, is of little to no surprise to most anyone anymore, Rocketman.

Edited May 4, 2016 by BRASSO

[cixelsyd]

IMO your assertion is just not true.

My assertion was only that the volume of drum corps brass sound is a function of many things that supersede intonation. Is that untrue?

[Kamarag]

My assertion was only that the volume of drum corps brass sound is a function of many things that supersede intonation. Is that untrue?

Your assertion isn't untrue, it's just not a complete answer. Intonation is a *major* factor in volume, but it's in no way the *only* factor.

[cixelsyd]

If Corps wanted Mfg, of brass instruments to make for them brass instruments in the key of G, todays technology would not only allow these Mfg's to do so, the quality of the G's would naturally be of far better quality than that of earlier generations of the production of the G's. The tubing could absolutely be provided to accommodate the music corps play today, imo. Don't take my word for it.... ask any of the Mfg's themselves if the technology is available to do so. They will tell us.. " yes ".

However, lets bear in mind what has driven these decisions. DCI corps increasingly utilize conventional marching band instrumentation because it allows these Corps better access to that scholastic marching band community's personnel. Since the adoption of DCI in the 70's, it has been the stated objective of DCI to align itself with the scholastic marching band community. For all intents and purposes, that 40 year quest has been attained. Thus, the fact that these units have the increasing appearance of scholastic marching bands, with the conventional marching band instrumentation utilization, is of little to no surprise to most, Rocketman.

Aligning with the scholastic marching band community was not "the stated objective of DCI" for 40 years. At first, it was more about aligning the drum corps activity under DCI. Once that shrank to a small enough fraction of its former size, then the priority turned to aligning with scholastic music programs. That has been the case for the past 20 years for sure, arguably 30 years, but not 40.

[cixelsyd]

Your assertion isn't untrue, it's just not a complete answer. Intonation is a *major* factor in volume, but it's in no way the *only* factor.

I have heard enough loud, out-of-tune hornlines to indicate otherwise. But okay, educate me - how do you think intonation affects volume? And what drum corps examples can you point to (positive or negative)?

[BRASSO]

Aligning with the scholastic marching band community was not "the stated objective of DCI" for 40 years.

Untrue. Factually untrue, as a matter of fact. Since the adoption of DCI not only was the alignment objective of DCI to " better align itself more with the scholastic marching band community", it was even incorporated into its very first Mission Statement. I know this, as I was present with one of the Founders of DCI that explained to me the Mission Statement DCI first formulated for itself, agreed too, then subsequently produced to the public immediately afterwards. If Mary Pesceone ( wife of the deceased 1st DCI Executive Director )was present here on DCP, she would confirm this for you too.

[C.Holland]

So, what I hear is (again not my point), Bb instruments Vs todays bugles are better. Fine. Then answer this, have their been any arrangements played on todays Bb instruments that could not have been played on todays bugles? Bugles were/are louder and intonation issues are not restricted to them. Intonation can also be part of training.

It is possible due to the key of those bugles We would have to take arrangements and transpose them to see how the fingerings lined up, as well as the partials.

[cixelsyd]

Untrue. Factually untrue, as a matter of fact. Since the adoption of DCI not only was the alignment objective of DCI to " better align itself more with the scholastic marching band community", it was even incorporated into its very first Mission Statement. I know this, as I was present with one of the Founders of DCI that explained to me the Mission Statement DCI first formulated for itself, agreed too, then subsequently produced to the public immediately afterwards. If Mary Pesceone ( wife of the deceased 1st DCI Executive Director )was present here on DCP, she would confirm this for you too.

Sorry for failing to express my thoughts clearly.

I quoted you as saying "the stated objective of DCI", including the word "the" purposely. I would not be surprised to find that seeking better alignment with scholastic music was "a" stated objective of DCI even as early as 1971. However, it did not become "the" stated objective of DCI (i.e. overriding other objectives) until some time later, from what I have observed. A fine distinction, maybe, but one worth noting IMO.