Cavaliers Sound Quality

[this_guy]

I wonder what would happen if Cavaliers played shostakovich. Would people still feel the way they do about their hornline? Or what if phantom played anything The Cavaliers have played the last 3 or so years. Would people still think the same about phantom's brass? I think people are basing their choice for "best hornline" on the musical styles the corps are chosing. I would like to hear Cavies try some shostakovich, and hear phantom do something like Cavaliers have been. I wonder if Cavaliers could use the same power as phantom, or if phantom could use the same balance between voices and colors (not only between brass members but percussion as well) that Cavies do, and use the same pure brass sounds that Cavaliers' music calls for.

I know the Cavaliers hornline had an arrangement of a Shostakovich prelude that was performed at their December '02 camp. I don't know if this was ever performed during the 2003 summer at any of their concerts, but it was absolutely AMAZING! Truly something everyone should hear.

That, in addition to the arrangement of "Brick House" that was performed, I think, only once in the 2002 summer.

Now that's versatility!

[BlackTuba57]

I wonder what would happen if Cavaliers played shostakovich. Would people still feel the way they do about their hornline? Or what if phantom played anything The Cavaliers have played the last 3 or so years. Would people still think the same about phantom's brass? I think people are basing their choice for "best hornline" on the musical styles the corps are chosing. I would like to hear Cavies try some shostakovich, and hear phantom do something like Cavaliers have been. I wonder if Cavaliers could use the same power as phantom, or if phantom could use the same balance between voices and colors (not only between brass members but percussion as well) that Cavies do, and use the same pure brass sounds that Cavaliers' music calls for. I think after hearing that I would know, in my opinion, which corps holds the best hornline.

hmmmm Shostakovich you say....HMMMMMMMMMM...maybe we'll get what we ask for this summer;)

[hiccups05]

fieldler posted in the shostakovich thread I started that the cavies do play some shos at camps and some concerts....

[Hornhoser]

those are all great players, but ive never heard any of them try to play past their own limitations.  however, i  have heard drum corps attempt to play beyond their limitations of supported sound

That depends upon how you define limitations. Dizzy, Maynard, Mangione, Miles Davis all have moments that you could define as exceeding their limitations by comarison to Herseth, Marsallis or even Al Vizutti for that matter. But does that diminish their chosen style of playing? Or does that challenge the listener to consider the expression and emotion of the thought or expression as being the most important musical expression, as compared to players who are all about technical precision, clarity and nuance?

I don't know if I could pick the best between Wyton Marsallis who is absolutely incredible technical wizard or Miles Davis who is a pure genius at expressing the raw, edgy emotional qualities that underly the music. Consider brass ensembles for a moment. Would anyone consider the style of brass playing as exemplified by the Chicago Symphony to be either the right way or the wrong way? What about Los Angeles, New York, or Cleveland?

As individuals or ensembles, the are all very different, but which is right? That is why the hair goes up on the back of my neck whenever I see or hear someone talking about a chosen approach to sound as if it was wrong or implying that a person who likes a different concept is not well educated (referencing your statement, "no. it means the university or drum corps that taught you did not do it's job correctly).

Folks, this is challenging. Like individual performance artisits, hornlines each have their own chosen character of sound. They make their own decisions as to which sound character and style of playing they are going for. When individuals in an ensemble make mistakes by exceeding the ensemble's established sound characteristics or limitations, regardless of the chosen approach, that is called ticking.

But that does not make one group's chosen style of performance right or wrong compared to another. And it certainly does not diminish one's right as a listener to like one style better than another.

Which is better? Apples or oranges?

HH

[hiccups05]

oranges :P

[Hornhoser]

Very true. But imagine that these 15 people were put in an ensemble together. Do you think they'd all continue to play with their respective "styles"? I certainly hope not, because it'd be a pretty awful ensemble. I would hope that these fine players, assuming some of them were still alive B) , would be able to listen and match in all aspects of playing. Is it bad to want an ensemble that sounds matched and balanced? I certainly don't think so. But if that's not your preference, to each his own.

Martin

Oh God no. Can you imagine what that would sound like? Probably a lot like any brass line at December camp, I imagine.

No, I don't think they would be able to continue to play in their respective styles because of the needs of the ensemble to have cohesion and clarity. (Unless as soloists of course.) They would have to adapt to the ensemble's chosen sound character and style of playing, otherwise they would not blend. In our world, they would be a tick machine.

So no, it is not bad to want matched sounds and to balance the ensemble. But in reference to the way this discussion has developed, when individuals make mistakes in a group's chosen style, that does not make that style wrong and another's right, as suggested by others here. It simply means one does their "schtick" better than the other.

HH

[Medeabrass]

But in reference to the way this discussion has developed, when individuals make mistakes in a group's chosen style, that does not make that style wrong and another's right, as suggested by others here. It simply means one does their "schtick" better than the other.

This is true. To clarify the discussion, I propose that maybe there is some overlap between Phantom's style and some of the issues that have been mentioned such as: individuals sticking out of the ensemble, bad attacks/releases, tone quality beyond the characteristics of the instrument, and tuning.

The reason I think the two could be thought of as related is because I think Phantom's chosen style might be summed up as "balls to the wall." There's nothing wrong with "ball's to the wall" per se in and of itself. A drum corps without balls is not a drum corps in my opinion. I don't think anyone can accuse Phantom of not having balls. That being said, problems arise because their commitment to this mentality seems to trump consideration for basic ensemble musicianship. This makes individuals within the ensemble more suceptible to errors we've discussed here...

[skimannc1]

Just my 2 cents but I feel Phantom has the best sound quality top to bottom. It's so big you can drive a truck through it. I think BD was next although brighter in sound it was still great and the demand put on them was unreal. I also personaly liked Blue Coats this year. I thought they had a very warm sound. Cavies are up there but I don't think they push to the edge enough. I always am left feeling they can go a little further.

[eightyonepointthree]

Just my 2 cents but I feel Phantom has the best sound quality top to bottom. It's so big you can drive a truck through it. I think BD was next although brighter in sound it was still great and the demand put on them was unreal. I also personaly liked Blue Coats this year. I thought they had a very warm sound. Cavies are up there but I don't think they push to the edge enough. I always am left feeling they can go a little further.

What does playing loud have to do with making a quality sound and matching with balance? You need to go back and read the rest of this discussion.

"pushing to the edge" is exactly what Cavaliers don't do...they are not about to sacrifice quality of sound for volume.

By the way, Blue Coats is ONE word...Bluecoats.

See me after class!

[Sideways]

But in reference to the way this discussion has developed, when individuals make mistakes in a group's chosen style, that does not make that style wrong and another's right, as suggested by others here. It simply means one does their "schtick" better than the other.

This is true. To clarify the discussion, I propose that maybe there is some overlap between Phantom's style and some of the issues that have been mentioned such as: individuals sticking out of the ensemble, bad attacks/releases, tone quality beyond the characteristics of the instrument, and tuning.

The reason I think the two could be thought of as related is because I think Phantom's chosen style might be summed up as "balls to the wall." There's nothing wrong with "ball's to the wall" per se in and of itself. A drum corps without balls is not a drum corps in my opinion. I don't think anyone can accuse Phantom of not having balls. That being said, problems arise because their commitment to this mentality seems to trump consideration for basic ensemble musicianship. This makes individuals within the ensemble more suceptible to errors we've discussed here...

w/Stp:

I can't agree more. The "balls to wall approach" is far riskier performance wise, but when it clicks...OMFG. You don't need sublty and nuance when the performance itself is that completely overwhelming. Phantom '96 and Madison '95 comes to mind. Each line had moments that were raw and missed releases but the effect and emotion put out by these lines is greater than anything I've ever heard from the Cavaliers. My opinion strictly of course.