What would you think if...

[N.E. Brigand]

1 minute ago, cfirwin3 said:

Why must doing something new (that actually sounds the same, for what it's worth) mean that the old thing was 'hated'.

As they say in the back country of Maine: "Ya caant get theah from heah."

Obviously lots of people don't think it sounds the same. One person has been pointedly arguing that pit amplification was necessary because those of who thought the front ensembles of the 1990s sounded good were wrong to think so.

[MarimbaManiac]

1 minute ago, garfield said:

I started to type a bunch of crap, but it all comes down to this:  Why, with all this knowledge and wizardry that you say is being so effectively used, is the perceptible impact to so much of the paying audience actually denigrated by its use?

And, seriously, considering that the only BIG money comes from a Saturday night in The Can,, shows are tuned to Saturday night and all other shows be ######, effectively.  Regardless if they hit their dials on the mixer in Dublin Ohio on August 1st (oops), their real payday still comes Saturday night in The Can.

 

Because sound designers usually get hours or days in a space to tune it correctly. In DCI that doesn't happen. 

LOS sounds the best because they've been there for years, and have detailed information about the venue. That cumulative knowledge has allowed them to tune their scenes over the past 10 seasons or so. That doesn't happen when they are in a random football stadium for a few minutes. Someone mentioned earlier that the Bluecoats team has a book with the characteristics of each venue, and make generic scenes based on the information they have. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't right off the back. 

I will agree though, that I think judges need to deeply penalize the groups that fail to balance to the space and cause electronics issues. 

[MarimbaManiac]

1 minute ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Obviously lots of people don't think it sounds the same. One person has been pointedly arguing that pit amplification was necessary because those of who thought the front ensembles of the 1990s sounded good were wrong to think so.

I think the front ensembles in the 90's sounded great. Unfortunately you couldn't always hear all the work they were doing.

[N.E. Brigand]

Just now, 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 think that's what's on display here. 

Regarding your first paragraph, you've made it pretty clear that you don't like the way that drum corps sounded in the 1990s with your claim that only in the recordings was the sound of a live show fixed to be heard as it should be. That's one opinion. You're entitled to it, of course.

As for your second paragraph: yes, part of the appeal of drum corps was the physical "power" on view when good design and execution created a big beautiful sound in a large venue. But sure, if you never cared for it, you can denigrate the appeal of that achievement by calling it a love of "machismo", even though many women participated in those corps.

[JimF-LowBari]

11 minutes 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.

Well I can read some current era fans as saying their way is the right way too. 

To this older timer the more electronics added then the less is coming from the human which was part of the “magic” to me. Then again I went/go to shows to sit back and be entertained and not to worry about if things are balanced and designed to the nth degree.

Edited August 7, 2019 by JimF-LowBari

[N.E. Brigand]

1 minute ago, MarimbaManiac said:

I think the front ensembles in the 90's sounded great. Unfortunately you couldn't always hear all the work they were doing.

Setting aside our disagreement on this point, or perhaps the possibility that the nature of the activity was such that not every whisper was meant to be heard, that still leaves the desire now to amplify the brass line.

"Amplify the mallets because you can't hear them over the horns and drums!"

"Now amplify the horns because they're out of balance with the pit!"

[MarimbaManiac]

1 minute ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Setting aside our disagreement on this point, or perhaps the possibility that the nature of the activity was such that not every whisper was meant to be heard, that still leaves the desire now to amplify the brass line.

"Amplify the mallets because you can't hear them over the horns and drums!"

"Now amplify the horns because they're out of balance with the pit!"

I would counter that amplifying the brass isn't about volume (with exception of the soloists), but instead it's about quality of sound. 

[JimF-LowBari]

3 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Regarding your first paragraph, you've made it pretty clear that you don't like the way that drum corps sounded in the 1990s with your claim that only in the recordings was the sound of a live show fixed to be heard as it should be. That's one opinion. You're entitled to it, of course.

Irony is some people thought the later 70s recordings did not sound like a live show. Biggest gripe was the marching bells cutting thru so bad they over shadowed rest of the corps. Picture mics near the 50 and drum line elevator drills and you get the idea. DCA worked with mic placements and boom mics and still had problems.

[JimF-LowBari]

7 minutes ago, MarimbaManiac said:

I would counter that amplifying the brass isn't about volume (with exception of the soloists), but instead it's about quality of sound. 

Ok how does setting the volume of what you hear from the horn line improve quality. Only thing I can think of is changing volume so it sounds like everyone is playing with the correct volume (balance).

Which can be done by human methods....🙄

Edited August 7, 2019 by JimF-LowBari

[Cappybara]

24 minutes 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.

Bro, I am 23 years old. There is not a single ounce of nostalgia or machismo that is driving my opinions. Your need to play armchair psychologist (stick to acoustics) is getting tiresome.