What would you think if...

[N.E. Brigand]

Just now, cfirwin3 said:

As I have noted before... failures of any sort that are not systemic issues are rarely 'punished'.  Like a fall that causes multiple others or a lost piece of equipment in the rain or wind... or a fracked note on a solo... Or an aired-out high note.  Judges aren't waiting to drop the axe on mishaps of any sort.

Right.

Judges aren't judging the show that they actually see and hear but the show that they imagine the corps could be doing if nobody made any mistakes.

[JimF-LowBari]

15 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Let me put it this way: what if a corps decided to be bold and daring and not mic any brass instruments. Would the judges accept that? Or would they be advising the corps to bring back the mics?

Well.... earliest “option” I can think of is adding that first valve. Since then can’t thinknof any “option” that wasn’t eventually used by all corps. 

Except those #### marching steel drums that thankful have been rusting since 1976

[garfield]

4 minutes ago, cfirwin3 said:

As I have noted before... failures of any sort that are not systemic issues are rarely 'punished'.  Like a fall that causes multiple others or a lost piece of equipment in the rain or wind... or a fracked note on a solo... Or an aired-out high note.  Judges aren't waiting to drop the axe on mishaps of any sort.

Presume Positive Intent.  Certainly, for sure, and until proven otherwise.

 

[cixelsyd]

2 hours ago, MarimbaManiac said:

Again, you're not understanding the problems, and conflating the techniques with the issues at hand. 

... because you were conflating them in your previous posts (i.e. DC offset).

Quote

The problems are with undesirable frequencies and phase cancellation issues created by the venues themselves, and are present when any music/sounds are presented in those venues, electronic or acoustic. Filtering and other techniques help mitigate those issues, and fix the acoustic irregularities of the venue. 

Okay, now I see where you are headed.  You are a true believer.  You think you can "fix the venue" via manipulating your electronic signals.

The fatal flaw in that reasoning is that drum corps is still primarily an acoustic idiom.  We have 76-horn brass sections that sometimes play loud, and battery percussion instruments designed for maximum sound projection.  They create the majority of the sound.  As long as that remains the case, you cannot "fix the venue" electronically because you are only "fixing" a small percentage of the sound.  You need to make the electronics the majority of the sound, like they are with many modern musical genres, before you can even theoretically have that kind of control.  (Oh ####, is that where we are headed?)

The real ways to "fix the venue" are to fix it physically so that all sounds, acoustic and electronic, benefit.  Those drapes at LOS are an example.  Of course, when drum corps was in outdoor venues all the time, there was nothing that required "fixing".

1 hour ago, MarimbaManiac said:

Again, I would suggest your memory of legacy performances are being colored by your biases. 

For many  recognize that the sound HAS improved as you can now hear all elements of the ensemble in the mix, with a greater clarity of intent, and with a mitigation of the environmental problems that were always present. 

Since you brought up biases, it should be noted that many of the experts imposing this technology on the activity are being paid by the same companies who supply the electronics.  Designers, instructors and judges all include some paid "endorsers" of these products.  Is it any surprise when they declare them successes?

(I guess I should ask if you have any such past or present affiliations with companies who sell this type of equipment?  Ever work with one, or sign a deal for product endorsement?)

Another category of people likely to think the sound has improved are the judges, endorsements or not... because to be honest, much of the technology is directed at attempting to improve the sound at a specific location - where they sit.  That sound, way far away up top, is so naturally compromised that if I sat there, I might even find amplification to be a net improvement.  But we achieve that at the cost of damaging the experience for most of the audience seating area.

1 hour ago, MarimbaManiac said:

I think the real issue here has very little to do with the product that's being created, or the sound designers and their work, it's the fact that some "legacy" fans/alumni have the need to feel as if their "way" was the "right way." There is this desire to reject changes (regardless of their positive attributes), because it wasn't how they did it, and they don't see the need. A&E has helped allow these programs to design fully immersive and dynamic stage shows, with phenomenal clarity and depth, but the response from some is just "it was better the other way."

I think earlier in this thread you said earlier that drum corps has a "machismo" problem, and I agree.

Please stop with the insults and the faux psychoanalysis.  I have enjoyed the activity (still do, just to be clear) through enough decades of changes to thoroughly dispel your anti-change stereotype.

[N.E. Brigand]

Just now, JimF-LowBari said:

Well.... earliest “option” I can think of is adding that first valve. Since then can’t thinknof any “option” that wasn’t eventually used by all corps. 

Except those #### marching steel drums that thankful have been rusting since 1976

There seems to be a weird sameness to drum corps, and not just in this era, which punishes variety.

This is why people who grew up older styles often say that all of today's corps sound and look the same, and people who grew up on new styles often say that all of yesterday's corps sound and look the same.

Someone who saw Bridgemen and Spirit of Atlanta and 27th Lancers and Blue Devils live in 1980 will tell you that those corps were nothing alike, but for someone raised on late 2010s drum corps, those shows all seem much more similar to one another than they do to the corps today.

[cfirwin3]

Just now, N.E. Brigand said:

Right.

Judges aren't judging the show that they actually see and hear but the show that they imagine the corps could be doing if nobody made any mistakes.

No.  They are judging humans doing their best with a show written for them.  They are looking for broad issues... Pedogogical lapses, systemic consistency... Not for 1 thing to go off or be wrong.

[karuna]

6 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Isn't this the sort of thing that designers promised they wouldn't do in order to keep the limit-on-brass-amplification rule from passing in January 2018?

Exactly.  What's confusing MarimbaManiac is he's presenting his facts as if this were some neutral activity in search of the most amazing technologically enhanced product possible when in fact it's a competition where the participants will use the technology to highlight their strengths and erase their weaknesses.  It's unavoidable.  

The loss of environmental challenges as a fundamental skill for each performer is being completely ignored.  Now what used to be a measurable skill is now a setting on a sound board.  The same can be said of dynamic contrast.   Need that 2nd mellophone to be a bit louder?  I'll just push this slider!  

And the best answer given to why this should all be done is because we can.  

Sprinters could go much faster if they all rode Kawasaki Ninjas?  Science says they'll go faster.  So it's a good idea right?  

Swimmers were wearing suits that made them so much faster that they made old times completely obsolete.  And yet FINA outlawed them!  Why? Because their use -- although technologically superior -- was detrimental to the nature of the sport. 

Sometimes enhancement is a BAD IDEA.

Measuring how well human performers could manage the challenges of their environment is a fundamental part of what makes drum corps, drum corps.  

Edited August 8, 2019 by karuna

[N.E. Brigand]

Just now, cixelsyd said:

...

Another category of people likely to think the sound has improved are the judges, endorsements or not... because to be honest, much of the technology is directed at attempting to improve the sound at a specific location - where they sit.  That sound, way far away up top, is so naturally compromised that if I sat there, I might even find amplification to be a net improvement.  But we achieve that at the cost of damaging the experience for most of the audience seating area.

Great post. I would note (again) my specific experience in 2012, watching Finals from a 600-level seat far to the left end of the field. Blue Devils' French, German, and English pre-recorded narration, which some fans had been complaining about all season long (and which was so clear on the Fan Network that I was able to create a full transcription of their text, amounting to a few paragraphs, as I recall) was barely audible from my Finals vantage point. After their performance, I asked a friend attending with me, who had not seen BD earlier that season, what he thought of the narration. "What narration?" he asked.

[Eleran]

[JimF-LowBari]

14 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

There seems to be a weird sameness to drum corps, and not just in this era, which punishes variety.

This is why people who grew up older styles often say that all of today's corps sound and look the same, and people who grew up on new styles often say that all of yesterday's corps sound and look the same.

Someone who saw Bridgemen and Spirit of Atlanta and 27th Lancers and Blue Devils live in 1980 will tell you that those corps were nothing alike, but for someone raised on late 2010s drum corps, those shows all seem much more similar to one another than they do to the corps today.

I bought the DVDs of bunch of 1967 shows and know what you mean. Black and white doesn’t help but just seems starting line... March around... concert.... march around... go to finish line.... repeat....